LIBRARY, 


SURVEY  U8RA«Y 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


http://archive.org/details/engineeringlegal42pick 


STATE   OF  ILLINOIS 

DEPARTMENT  OF  REGISTRATION  AND  EDUCATION 

DIVISION  OF  THE 

STATE  GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 

FRANK  W.   DEWOLF,   Chief 

BULLETIN  No.  42 


ENGINEERING  AND  LEGAL  ASPECTS  OF 
LAND  DRAINAGE  IN  ILLINOIS 

by 

G.  W.  PICKELS  AND  F.  B.  LEONARD,  JR. 


PRINTED  BY  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS 
1921 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  Page 

PART  I.— Status  of  Drainage,  September,  1920:    By  G.  W.  Pickels 

I.     Introduction    9 

Purpose  and  acknowledgments   9 

Summary  and  conclusions 10 

Discussion  of  the  results  of  drainage  studies  11 

Organized  drainage  districts    11 

Districts  being  organized 14 

Overflowed  areas   20 

Difficulties  experienced  by  organized  districts 23 

Legal 23 

Engineering    24 

Physical 24 

Obstacles  preventing  new  reclamation  work  . .  . . 25 

II.     Mississippi  River  watershed   28 

III.  Pecatonica  River  watershed 45 

IV.  Rock  River  watershed    48 

V.     Kishwaukee  River  watershed  54 

VI.  Fox  River  watershed 62 

VII.  Desplaines  River  watershed 67 

VIII.  Lake  Michigan  watershed 72 

IX.  Kankakee  River  watershed 75 

X.  Vermilion  River  watershed 82 

XL  Mackinaw  River  watershed 87 

XII.  Illinois  River  watershed 90 

XIII.  Green  River  watershed 110 

XIV.  Spoon  River  watershed   115 

XV.  Crooked  Creek  watershed 119 

XVI.  Salt  Creek  watershed 122 

XVII.  Sangamon  River  watershed 126 

XVIII.  Big  Vermilion  River  watershed 135 

XIX.  Wabash  River  watershed 140 

XX.  Embarrass  River  watershed   151 

XXI.  Kaskaskia  River  watershed   160 

XXII.  South  Fork  of  Sangamon  River  watershed  174 

XXIII.  Macoupin    Creek   watershed    179 

XXIV.  Little  Wabash  River  watershed 182 

XXV.  Skillet  Fork  River  watershed    189 

XXVI.  Big  Muddy  River  watershed 194 

XXVII.  Saline  River  watershed    197 

XXVIII.  Cache  River  watershed  203 

XXIX.  Ohio  River  watershed  207 

PART  II. — Engineering  Problems:  By  G.  W.  Pickels 

XXX.     Channel  improvement   209 

Increasing  the  cross-section   209 

Increasing  the  velocity   209 

Factors  affecting  the  velocity    210 

Roughness  factor   210 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  Page 

XXX.     Channel  improvement — continued    , .210 

Hydraulic  depth   210 

Slope  of  stream 211 

Result  of  channel  straightening  due  to  increased  velocity 211 

Effect  of  shortening  channel   213 

General  discussion  214 

XXXI.     Levees    216 

Design   216 

Crown    216 

Side  slopes 216 

Height 217 

Freeboard    217 

Cost .217 

Discharge    218 

Spacing  and  height   219 

Construction 219 

Maintenance 220 

XXXII.     Diversion  ditches 222 

XXXIIL     Pumping  plants  . . . 225 

PART  III.— Legal  Problems:  By  F.  B.  Leonard,  Jr. 

XXXIV.     The  drainage  laws  of  Illinois 230 

Foreword 230 

The  law  of  natural  drainage  in  the  absence  of  statute 230 

The  present  statute  laws :  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  the  Levee  Act, 

and  miscellaneous  independent  acts   234 

Organization    235 

Adoption  of  plans    for  work  and  raising  of  money  to  pay  for 

the  same   243 

Construction  of  work 249 

1.  Contracts  for  the  work 249 

2.  Additional  assessments   250 

3.  Change  in  original  plans  251 

Maintenance 252 

Abandonment  and  dissolution  of  drainage  district 254 

Miscellaneous  powers:  duties  and  succession  of  commissioners.  .  .255 
Miscellaneous  independent  acts  261 

Defects  in  the  present  law   j 263 

Suggestions  for  improvement  by  legislation .270 

XXXV.     Status  of  the  Revised  Levee  Act 274 

Outline  of  the  Act 274 

Reprint  of  the  Act 276 

Cross-reference  table  of  section  numbers  in  the  Revised  Levee 

Act  and  old  Levee  Act 315 

PART  IV.— State  Aid  :    By  G.  W.  Pickels 

XXXVI.     The  question  of  State  aid 317 

Educational  assistance   •_ 319 

Investigational  assistance    320 

Legislative  assistance   322 

6 


TABLES 

Page 

1.  Table  showing  status  of  dr.ainage  in  Illinois,  September,  1920 , 12 

2.  Comparison  of  the  several  watersheds  as  regards  amount  of  drainage  work 

already  done   15 

3.  Comparison  of  the  several  watersheds  as  regards  new  drainage  districts  in 

process  of  organization  18 

4.  Drainage  data  for  the  Mississippi  River  watershed  28 

5.  Drainage  data  for  the  Rock  River  watershed  48 

6.  Drainage  data  for  the  Kishwaukee  River  watershed  , 54 

7.  Drainage  data  for  the  Fox  River  watershed   63 

8.  Drainage  data  for  the  Desplaines  River  watershed  67 

9.  Drainage  data  for  the  Lake  Michigan  watershed 72 

10.  Drainage  data  for  the  Kankakee  River  watershed  75 

11.  Drainage  data  for  the  Vermilion  River  watershed 83 

12.  Drainage  data  for  the  Mackinaw  River  watershed   87 

13.  Drainage  data  for  the  Illinois  River  watershed  92 

14.  Drainage  data  for  the  Green  River  watershed Ill 

15.  Drainage  data  for  the  Spoon  River  watershed 116 

16.  Drainage  data  for  the  Crooked  Creek  watershed  , 119 

17.  Drainage  data  for  the  Salt  Creek  watershed 122 

18.  Drainage  data  for  the  Sangamon  River  watershed 127 

19.  Drainage  data  for  the  Big  Vermilion  River  watershed  136 

20.  Drainage  data  for  the  Wabash  River  watershed  140 

21.  Drainage  data  for  the  Embarrass  River  watershed 151 

22.  Drainage  data  for  the  Kaskaskia  River  watershed  161 

23.  Drainage  data  for  the  South  Fork  of  the  Sangamon  River  watershed 174 

24.  Drainage  data  for  the  Macoupin  Creek  watershed 180 

25.  Drainage  data  for  the  Little  Wabash  River  watershed  183 

26.  Drainage  data  for  the  Skillet  Fork  watershed 190 

27.  Drainage  data  for  the  Big  Muddy  River  watershed 195 

28.  Drainage  data  for  the  Saline  River  watershed 198 

29      Drainage  data  for  the  Cache  River  watershed 204 

30.  Drainage  data  for  the  Ohio  River  watershed 208 

31.  Cost  data  for  one  mile  of  levees  of  different  heights,  using  crown  of  3  feet 

and  combined  side  slopes  of  5  to  1  * 217 

32.  Rated  capacity  of  centrifugal  pumps. 227 

33.  Pumping  capacity  required  for  various  sizes  of  watersheds 228 

34.  Cost  of  operating  pumping  plants  for  the  years  prior  to  1915 229 

MAPS 
Drainage  reclamation  map  of  Illinois In  pocket 


STATE   OF   ILLINOIS 

DEPARTMENT  OF  REGISTRATION  AND  EDUCATION 

DIVISION  OF  THE 

STATE  GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY 

FRANK  W.   DEWOLF,   Chief 


Committee  of  the  Board  of  Natural  Resources 
and  Conservation 

W.  H.  H.  Miller,  Chairman 

Director  of   Registration  and   Education 

Kendric  C.  Babcock 

Representing  the   President  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Illinois 

Rollin  D.  Salisbury 
Geologist 


ENGINEERING  AND  LEGAL  ASPECTS  OF  LAND 
DRAINAGE  IN  ILLINOIS 

By  G.  W.  Pickels  and  F.  B.  Leonard,  Jr, 

PART  I— STATUS  OF  DRAINAGE,  SEPTEMBER,  1920 

BY  G.  W.  PICKELS 

CHAPTER  I— INTRODUCTION 
Purpose  and  Acknowledgments 
The  State  Geological  Survey  Division  of  the  Department  of  Registration 
and  Education  was  authorized  by  the  1919  legislature  to  make  an  investiga- 
tion of  the  drainage  situation  throughout  the  State. 

No  specific  directions  were  given  as  to  just  what  phases  of  the  drainage 
problem  should  be  looked  into  and  after  careful  consideration  it  was  decided 
to  study  the  situation  under  the  following  four  headings : 

1.  The  location  and  extent  of  the  areas  included  in  drainage  districts 
organized  under  the  two  drainage  laws  of  the  State. 

2.  The  location  and  extent  of  the  areas  being  organized  into  districts. 

3.  The  location  and  extent  of  the  bottom  lands  which  are  now  wholly 
or  partially  unproductive  due  to  overflow  conditions. 

4.  The  difficulties  which  have  been  experienced  in  the  organization  of 
districts  under  the  existing  laws,  and  the  obstacles  which  are  holding  back 
the  reclamation  of  the  large  areas  of  extremely  fertile  lands  in  the  river 
bottoms  throughout  the  State. 

G.  W.  Pickels,  Assistant  Professor  of  Drainage  Engineering  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Illinois,  was  placed  in  charge  of  the  investigation.  Edmund  T. 
Perkins  of  the  Edmund  T.  Perkins  Engineering  Company,  and  John  W. 
Alvord  of  the  firm  of  Alvord  and  Burdick  of  Chicago ;  Jacob  A.  Harman  of 
the  Elliott  and  Harman  Engineering  Company  of  Peoria,  and  F.  H.  Newell 
of  the  University  of  Illinois  kindly  consented  to  act  as  an  advisory  committee. 
Professor  C.  C.  Wiley  and  C.  B.  Schmeltzer  of  the  University  of  Illinois,  and 
J,  A.  Duck  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  assisted  in  the  field  work. 

The  investigation  was  started  in  Jul}-,  1919,  and  completed  in  September, 
1920.  Most  of  the  field  work  was  done  during  the  spring  and  summer  of 
1920.    The  physical  data  obtained  are  shown  on  the  accompanying  map. 

As  a  beginning,  as  much  information  as  possible  was  obtained  through 
correspondence.  The  names  of  the  commissioners  of  drainage  districts  or- 
ganized under  the  Levee  Act  and  of  the  township  clerks  were  secured  from 
the  county  clerks.  A  drainage  questionnaire  containing  twenty-one  questions 
was  sent  to  one  or  more  of  the  commissioners  of  each  district.  Of  those  ad- 
dressed, about  65  per  cent  filled  out  and  returned  the  questionnaire  accom- 
panied in  many  instances  by  letters  giving  additional  information.      It   was 


10  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

found  more  difficult  to  obtain  information  concerning  districts  organized 
under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  A  record  of  such  districts  is  supposed  to 
be  kept  by  the  township  clerks,  but  in  most  cases  the  records  have  been 
poorly  kept,  and  in  some  instances  they  had  been  lost  or  destroyed.  A 
Standard  township  subdivision  blank  was  sent  to  each  of  the  1,542  township 
clerks  in  the  State,  with  a  letter  explaining  the  purpose  of  the  investigation 
and  asking  them  to  indicate  on  the  blank  the  locations  of  any  districts  in 
their  respective  townships  and  of  any  areas  which  were  unproductive  due  to 
swamps  or  overflows.  About  30  per  cent  of  the  township  clerks  responded 
more  or  less  satisfactorily.  In  this  way  a  considerable  amount  of  valuable 
data  was  obtained. 

With  this  information  as  a  basis,  each  county  was  visited.  The  bounda- 
ries of  districts  organized  under  the  Levee  Act  and  of  special  districts  formed 
under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  were  found  in  the  county  clerk's  office.  The 
township  records  were  also  consulted  for  districts  organized  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  highway  commissioners.  The  most  valuable  assistance  was 
rendered  by  drainage  engineers  and  attorneys.  They  were  thoroughly  fa- 
miliar with  the  situation  in  their  communities  and  furnished  considerable 
data  in  regard  to  areas  needing  drainage,  and  made  many  valuable  sugges- 
tions as  to  ways  of  improving  conditions  in  their  counties.  Frequently, 
maps  of  districts  were  procured  which  were  not  on  record,  and  the  locations 
of  districts  in  the  process  of  formation  were  all  obtained  from  these  men. 

The  county  agricultural  advisors  throughout  the  State  showed  a  fine 
spirit  of  co-operation  and  gave  freely  of  their  time  and  of  their  knowledge  of 
drainage  conditions.  Through  interviews  with  drainage  commissioners,  land 
owners,  bankers,  real  estate  men,  and  others,  the  situation  was  studied  from 
a  variety  of  viewpoints. 

The  State  Geological  Survey  maps  and  the  soil  maps  prepared  by  the 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station  of  the  University  of  Illinois  were  of  great 
value  in  the  determination  of  limits  of  overflow  along  the  river  bottoms.  The 
latter  maps  have  been  used  throughout  this  report  in  determining  the  soil 
types  in  those  counties  which  have  been  surveyed. 

Summary  and  Conclusions 

For  the  purpose  of  the  drainage  studies,  the  State  was  divided  into  28 
unit  areas,  corresponding  to  28  watersheds,  and  data  were  collected  and 
organized  for  each  of  these  areas  independently.  Table  1  and  the  accom- 
panying map  constitute  a  compilation  of  all  the  data,  and  represent  in  sum- 
mary form  the  drainage  status  of  Illinois  for  September,  1920.  Because  of 
information  obtained  after  the  map  was  printed,  the  data  in  Table  1  and  in 
the  map  table  differ  slightly. 

Summarizing  in  another  way,  the  status  is  as  follows : 

1.     Drainage,  levee,  and  sanitary  districts  to  the  number  of  1,043  have 


INTRODUCTION  11 

been  formed  up  to  the  present  time.  The  4,608,880  acres  contained  in  these 
districts  constitute  12.8  per  cent  of  the  State.  About  4.3  per  cent  of  the 
area  within  districts  needs  further  attention. 

2.  One  hundred  and  two  districts  are  in  various  stages  of  organization. 
These  are  scattered  throughout  the  State  and  contain  a  total  of  612,050  acres, 
which  constitutes  1.7  per  cent  of  the  State.  This  is  exclusive  of  those  por- 
tions of  old  districts  which  are  within  the  boundaries  of  the  new  districts. 

3.  Approximately  1,126,760  acres  of  overflowed  land  lie  in  the  river 
and  creek  bottoms.  A  considerable  portion  of  this  area  is  in  timber,  as  the 
present  condition  of  the  land  has  not  warranted  its  removal.  On  an  average, 
crops  are  lost  more  than  half  the  time.  Over  large  areas,  crops  are  not  har- 
vested oftener  than  once  in  four  years.  The  bottom  lands  are  the  best  lands 
in  each  community,  and  represent  a  valuable  natural  resource  which  is  un- 
developed. 

4.  Some  374,000  acres  of  wet  uplands  are  indicated  on  the  map.  This 
phase  of  the  investigation  is  not  complete,  and  there  are  other  areas  which 
no  doubt  need  to  and  will  eventually  be  organized  into  districts. 

The  reclamation  of  the  bottom  lands  of  the  State  is  a  matter  which 
should  concern  every  citizen  who  has  the  welfare  of  the  State  at  heart  and 
wishes  to  see  all  its  natural  resources  developed  to  the  fullest  extent.  This 
is  a  resource  which  is  inexhaustible,  with  proper  farming,  and  which  will 
add  some  $50,000,000  annually  to  the  wealth  of  the  State. 

DISCUSSION  OF  THE  RESULTS  OF  DRAINAGE  STUDIES 

The  results  of  the  investigation  will  be  discussed  briefly  under  each  of 
the  four  headings  mentioned  in  the  introduction  above,  and  in  conclusion  a 
statement  of  the  obstacles  hindering  new  reclamation  work,  together  with 
suggestions  as  to  how  they  may  be  overcome,  will  be  made. 

1.     Organized  Drainage  Districts 

The  locations  of  1,043  drainage,  levee,  and  sanitary  districts  were  ob- 
tained. These  are  shown  in  red  on  the  map.  As  the  total  area  contained  in 
these  districts  is  4,608,880  acres,  the  average  size  of  district  is  4,420  acres. 

A  district  was  considered  organized  if  the  assessment  roll  had  been  con- 
firmed, and  if  all  indications  were  that  the  drainage  works  would  be  con- 
structed. 

Probably  about  25  small  districts  are  not  shown  owing  to  difficulty  in 
obtaining  their  locations.  The  boundaries  of  a  few  of  the  districts  are  only 
approximate  as  no  record  of  their  exact  boundaries  could  be  found. 

The  organized  districts  in  each  watershed  are  numbered  consecutively, 
beginning  with  number  one,  and  correspond  to  similar  numbers  in  the  tables 
for  each  watershed  which  give  the  names  of  the  districts.  These  tables  ap- 
pear in  the  following  chapters. 

About  65  per  cent  of  these  districts  were  organized  under  the  Farm 


12 


LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  1. — Tabic  showing  status  of 


Watershed 


Name 


1 

1  Mississippi 

2  Pecatonica 

3  Rock 

4  Kishwaukee 

5  Fox 

6  Desplaines 

7  Lake  Michigan 

8  Kankakee 

9  Vermilion  (into  Illinois) 

10  Mackinaw 

11  Illinois 

12  Green 

13  Spoon 

14  Crooked  Creek 

15  Salt  Creek  (into  Sangamon) . 

16  Sangamon 

17  Big  Vermilion  (into  Wabash) . 

18  Wabash 

19  Embarrass 

20  Kaskaskia 

21  South  Fork,  Sangamon  River. 

22  Macoupin  Creek 

23  Little  Wabash 

24  Skillet  Fork 

25  Big  Muddy 

26  >Saline 

27  Cache 

28  Ohio 

Total 


Area  in 
square 
miles 


6,350 

770 

2,270 

1,200 

1,630 

1,220 

780 

2,150 

1,290 

1,120 

6,940 

970 

1,790 

1,360 

1,870 

2,340 

1,250 

2,680 

2,260 

5,670 

1,130 

970 

2,180 

1,050 

2,360 

1,230 

720 

800 


56,350 


Area  in  drainage  districts 


Organized 


No. 


3 

51 

0 

19 

31 

42 

24 

14 

101 

36 

12 

68 

23 

1 

0 

27 

79 

63 

62 

98 

120 

82 

19 

34 

7 

0 

20 

9 

1 


1,043 


Total  acreage 


4 
500,300 


145,040 

128,620 

91,845 

43,190 

300,530 

392,360 

134,240 

66,380 

322,260 

189,090 

1,500 


118,770 

320,560 

317,860 

207,520 

315,850 

419,640 

157,645 

31,470 

90,070 

52,690 


125,920 

123,430 

12,100 


Being  Organized 


No. 


5 
4 
0 
1 
3 
5 
5 
5 
4 
6 
0 

10 
0 
1 
0 
7 
6 
3 
7 
3 

11 
4 
3 
3 
2 
1 
5 
3 
0 


4,608,880 


102 


Total 
Acreage 


6 
12,900 


1,400 
8,400 
20,020 
32,680 
32,060 
17,660 
54,700 


38,020 
'  4,240 ' 


42,730 
63,180 

7,460 
42,750 

8,130 
66,520 
19,500 
20,110 

7,160 
50,030 

3,600 
31,180 
30,320 


614,750 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


drainage  in  Illinois,  September,  1920 


Bottom  lands 


Acreage 


7 

105,700 

32,200 

74,300 

8,400 


4,000 


115,210 


30,200 
25,180 
20,700 
31,500 


48,920 
52,000 

137,800 
24,900 
13,300 
96,320 
40,280 

138,500 
64,850 
29,800 
32,700 


1,126,760 


Area  in  need  of  drainage 


Uplands 


Acreage 


2,600 


24,000 
24,700 
42,900 
6,300 
4,500 
68,000 


9,460 
23,300 
14,700 


2,000 
7,000 
10,880 
34,790 
10,220 
13,600 
41,500 
12,000 


21,290 


373,740 


Within 
organized 
districts 


Acreage 


9 
36,000 


12,000 
4,000 
3,000 
7,000 
5,000 
4,000 
3,000 
2,000 

25,000 
5,000 


2,000 

2,000 

1,000 

15,000 

22,000 

2,000 

2,000 

500 

20,000 

2,000 


15,000 
10,000 


199,500 


Total  acreage 


10 

144,300 
32,200 

110,300 
37,100 
45,900 
17,300 
9,500 
72,000 
3,000 
11,460 

163,510 
19,700 
30,200 
27,180 
29,700 
44,380 
35,790 
74,140 
87,600 

181,300 
38,900 
13,800 

137,610 
42,280 

138,500 
79,850 
39,800 
32,700 


1,700,000 


Total  area 
originally 
in  need  of 
drainage 


11 
621,500 

32,200 
244,740 
170,120 
154,765 

86,170 
337,090 
478,020 
188,940 

75,840 
498,790 
203,790 

35,940 

27,180 
189,200 
426,120 
360,110 
309,410 
389,580 
665,460 
214,045 

64,880 
214,840 
143,000 
142,100 
221,950 
183,550 

44,800 


6,724,130 


Percentage 

still 
unreclaimed 


12 
23 

100 
45 
22 
30 
20 
3 
15 
2 
15 
33 
10 
84 

100 
16 
10 
10 
24 
22 
27 
18 
21 
64 
30 
97 
36 
25 
73 


25 


14  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

Drainage  Act.  A  few  are  private  districts  organized  by  mutual  agreement 
of  the  owners  without  the  formality  of  a  court  order.  The  remaining  dis- 
tricts were  formed  under  the  Levee  Act.  As  a  rule  the  river  districts  were 
organized  under  the  Levee  Act  and  the  upland  districts  under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act.  Generally,  where  the  area  involved  was  small  and  the  plans 
for  drainage  simple,  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  has  been  used,  no  doubt  because 
of  the  smaller  organization  costs  and  of  the  saving  in  time.  The  drainage 
attorneys  have  had  a  good  deal  to  do  with  this.  Usually  the  local  attorney 
has  advised  the  use  of  the  law  with  which  he  was  most  familiar. 

In  order  that  a  comparison  may  be  made  of  the  drainage  activity  in  the 
several  watersheds,  Table  2  has  been  prepared,  showing  the  number  of  dis- 
tricts and  the  total  area  per  1,000  square  miles  of  watershed  area,  and  the 
percentage  of  the  watershed  area  thus  represented.  This  is  an  indication 
of  the  drainage  sentiment  and  especially  the  drainage  opportunity  in  each 
part  of  the  State. 

The  Lake  Michigan  watershed  ranks  first  due  to  the  three  large  sani- 
tary districts  in  this  area,  but  if  drainage  districts  alone  were  considered,  this 
watershed  would  come  in  about  twelfth  place. 

Naturally  the  watersheds  containing  the  greatest  area  of  flat  lands,  like 
those  of  the  eastern  and  central  portions  of  the  State,  rank  higher  than  the 
rougher  ones  where  the  need  for  drainage  has  been  smaller.  The  lack  of 
natural  drainage  in  these  areas  made  artificial  drainage  imperative  if  the  full 
productivity  of  the  land  was  to  be  realized,  and  the  fact  that  they  lay  in  the 
corn  belt  enhanced  their  agricultural  value  to  such  an  extent  as  to  give  a 
special  incentive  to  drainage  work. 

Considering  the  State  as  a  whole,  12.8  per  cent  is  in  organized  districts, 
which  represents  about  68  per  cent  of  the  area  subject  to  reclamation. 

Because  of  watershed  characteristics,  column  12  of  Table  1  is  a  better 
index  of  drainage  activity  than  are  the  data  in  Table  2.  This  will  be  treated 
more  fully  later. 

Most  of  the  districts  are  located  at  the  upper  ends  of  the  watersheds 
where  there  was  little  or  no  trouble  from  overflow.  Here  the  land  was  so 
flat  that  rain  water  could  not  run  off  and  stood  on  the  ground  until  it  evapo- 
rated or  found  its  way  slowly  through  the  soil  to  the  natural  channels.  The 
drainage  of  this  land  was  quite  simple  and  comparatively  inexpensive  as  all 
that  was  necessary  was  the  construction  of  a  few  open  ditches  or  tile  drains 
to  provide  convenient  outlets  for  the  smaller  tile  drains  laid  by  the  individual 
land  owners.  For  the  most  part  these  districts  have  been  successful  from 
the  start,  and  the  land  freed  from  excess  water  increased  rapidly  in  value. 
However,  there  have  been  too  many  instances  where  adequate  drainage  was 
not  secured  due  to  incorrect  engineering  design,  and  the  work  had  to  be  done 
over  which  doubled  the  cost.  These  failures  stand  as  a  warning  to  land 
owners  that  they  can  not  afford  to  spend  thousands  of  dollars  for  drainage 


INTRODUCTION 


IS 


works  until  they  are  sure  that  their  plans  are  correctly  designed  and  that  they 
will  give  adequate  drainage  to  all  the  lands.  A  thoroughly  competent  drain- 
age engineer  is  the  best  insurance  against  failure. 

The  drainage  of  the  lands  at  the  upper  end  of  the  watersheds  has  re- 
sulted in  increased  flood  flows  below  and  in  decreased  low-water  flow  during 


Table  2. — Comparison  of  the  several  watersheds  as  regards  amount  of  drainage 

work  already  done 


Watershed 


Drainage  districts 


No, 


Name 


Area  in 
square 
miles 


Total 
acreage 


Number 
of  districts 

per  1,000 
sq.  mi.  of 
watershed 


Acres  per 
1,000 

square  miles 

of 

watershed 


Per- 
centage 

of 
water- 
shed 


Lake  Michigan 

Big  Vermilion  (into  Wabash  river) 

Green 

Kankakee 

Cache .' 

Embarrass 

South  Fork  (Sangamon  River).... 

Sangamon 

Kishwaukee 

Vermilion(into  Illinois  River) .  .  . 

Saline J 

Mississippi 

Wabash 

Kaskaskia 

Rock 

Salt  Creek  (into  Sangamon  River) 

Mackinaw 

Fox 

Skillet  Fork 

Illinois 

Little  Wabash 

Des  Plaines 

Macoupin  Creek 

Ohio 

Spoon 

Pecatonica 

Crooked  Creek 

Big  Muddy 

Total  for  State 


780 
1,250 

970 
2,150 

720 
2,260 
1,130 
2,340 
1,200 
1,290 
1,230 
6,350 
2,680 
5,670 
2,270 
1,870 
1,120 
1,630 
1,050 
6,940 
2,180 
1,220 

970 

800 
1,790 

770 
1,360 
2,360 


300,530 

317,860 

189,090 

392,360 

123,430 

315,850 

157,645 

320,560 

128,620 

134,240 

125,920 

500,300 

207,520 

419,640 

145,040 

118,770 

66,380 

91,845 

52,690 

322,260 

90,070 

43,190 

31,470 

12,100 

1,500 


18 
50 
24 
47 
12 
43 
73 
34 
26 
28 
16 

8 
23 
21 

8 

14 
11 
26 

7 

10 
15 
19 
20 

2 

1 


385,295 

254,288 

194,940 

182,493 

171,431 

139,756 

139,500 

136,991 

107,183 

104,062 

102,375 

78,787 

77,433 

74,010 

63,894 

63,513 

59,288 

56,346 

50,180 

46,435 

41,316 

35,400 

32,440 

15,125 

838 


58,350 


4,608,883 


19 


81,790 


60.2 

39.7 

30.5 

28.5 

26.8 

21.9 

21.7 

21.4 

16.7 

16.3 

16.0 

12.3 

12.1 

11.6 

10.0 

9.9 

9.3 

8.8 

7.8 

7.3 

6.5 

5.5 

5.1 

2.4 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 


12.8 


the  summer.  Along  the  lower  ends  of  streams,  districts  which  at  first  were 
fairly  successful  are  now  in  bad  condition  because  of  this  increased  flow ; 
and  although  under  the  common  law  the  servient  tenant  has  to  take  the 
water  which  comes  from  the  higher  lands,  yet  the  owners  of  the  lower 
lands  feel  with  some  justice  that  the  artificial  drainage  of  thousands  of  square 
miles  of  uplands  has  placed  a  burden  upon  them  which  is  unfair  and  which 


16  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS  . 

was  not  appreciated  in  the  early  days  of  drainage  when  only  small  areas  were 
involved.    This  will  be  discussed  more  fully  later. 

Most  of  the  districts  shown  are  still  active,  and  periodically  clean  their 
ditches  and  make  other  necessary  repairs  so  as  to  provide  satisfactory  tile 
outlets  to  all  the  lands.  Some  of  the  older  districts  abandoned  their  organ- 
ization as  soon  as  their  ditches  were  dug,  and  owing  to  lack  of  maintenance 
the  land  is  becoming  wet  again. 

Unfortunately  there  are  a  few  examples  of  large  areas  which  formed 
organizations  to  prevent  drainage.  These  districts  did  just  as  little  as  they 
could,  and  were  really  organized  under  false  pretenses. 

There  are  also  instances  where  districts  which  have  been  organized  for 
some  time  have  for  various  reasons  done  no  construction  work.  Most  of 
these  were  organized  just  before  the  war  and  have  delayed  construction  on 
account  of  the  high  cost  of  labor  and  materials.  No  doubt  these  districts  will 
start  work  as  soon  as  conditions  become  normal. 

With  a  few  exceptions,  all  of  the  levee  districts  are  located  along  the 
Mississippi  and  Illinois  Rivers.  Those  along  the  latter  river  are  more  suc- 
cessful than  those  along  the  former.  Nearly  all  of  the  Illinois  River  districts 
operate  pumping  plants  and  practically  all  the  land  within  them  is  producing. 
About  six  of  these  districts  are  not  completed  and  it  will  be  several  years 
before  the  land  contained  in  them  will  be  fully  reclaimed. 

The  districts  along  the  Mississippi  are  protected  by  levees,  but  few  ot 
them  operate  pumping  plants,  with  the  result  that  parts  of  the  districts  can 
not  be  cultivated.  For  the  most  part,  plans  to  remedy  this  situation  are  being 
made,  and  so  it  should  not  be  a  great  while  before  all  of  these  areas  are  fully 
reclaimed. 

For  these  reasons,  all  the  areas  shown  in  red  on  the  map  do  not  represent 
thoroughly  drained  land.  In  column  9,  Table  1,  is  given  an  estimate  of  the 
amount  of  such  land  in  each  watershed  which  should  be  included  with  the 
unreclaimed  areas.  It  is  difficult  to  determine  the  amount  of  these  areas,  but 
the  values  given  are  conservative.  Table  1  shows  a  total  of  4,608,880  acres 
in  organized  districts.  Subtracting  the  total  of  column  9,  we  have  4,409,380 
acres  which  may  be  considered  to  have  been  drained  through  organized 
districts. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  some  overlapping  of  districts.  This  occurs 
where  one  of  the  districts  is  an  old  one  which  did  not  give  sufficient  relief 
to  the  lands  on  the  edges,  and  when  a  new  district  was  formed  adjacent  the 
owners  of  this  land  desired  to  come  into  it  to  secure  a  better  outlet.  This 
overlapping  has  been  taken  care  of  as  far  as  the  tables  are  concerned  and  no 
area  is  counted  twice. 

A  study  of  the  map  shows  that  more  of  the  bottom  land  along  the  larger 
streams  is  in  districts  than  is  the  case  along  the  smaller  streams.  This  is 
owing  to  the  greater  width  of  the  bottoms  in  the  former  case  and  to  the 


INTRODUCTION  17 

greater  area  protected  by  a  levee  of  given  length  and  the  smaller  cost  per 
acre.  The  problem  along  the  smaller  streams  is  much  more  complicated 
from  both  an  engineering  and  organization  standpoint. 

Although  the  total  area  of  land  in  districts  is  large,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  for  the  most  part  this  area  was  the  easiest  and  cheapest  to  reclaim 
and  that  the  remaining  wet  areas  will  be  drained  much  more  slowly  due  to 
increased  difficulties  and  greater  expense. 

No  effort  was  made  to  determine  the  cost  of  each  district,  and  hence  the 
average  cost  per  acre  of  reclaiming  this  land  can  not  be  stated.  Naturally, 
a  considerable  amount  of  such  data  was  obtained ;  but  because  of  the  differ- 
ence in  size  of  the  districts  and  in  the  amount  of  drainage  construction  which 
was  necessary,  the  cost  per  acre  varied  greatly — from  a  few  dollars  in  some 
instances  to  as  much  as  $50  in  others.  There  are  comparatively  few  dis- 
tricts which  have  not  paid  good  returns  on  the  money  invested.  Those  which 
have  not  done  so  were  either  poorly  planned  or  improperly  constructed,.  The 
costs  have  sometimes  been  greatly  increased  by  long  litigation,  with  the  at- 
tendant court  costs  and  attorneys'  fees.  However,  most  of  this  trouble 
could  have  been  avoided  by  careful  planning,  and  the  additional  cost  should 
not  be  charged  to  drainage  reclamation. 

2.     Districts  Being  Organized 

One  hundred  and  two  districts  are  shown  on  the  map  as  being  in  the 
process  of  organization.  Some  of  these  are  having  preliminary  surveys 
made ;  others  are  circulating  their  petitions ;  and  still  others  have  been 
organized  by  court  order,  and  commissioners  have  been  appointed  but  the 
assessment  roll  has  not  been  confirmed.  The  critical  point  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  district  is  this  confirmation,  for  when  the  amount  which  each  land 
owner  is  to  pay  is  definitely  known,  many  objections  arise,  and  many  districts 
have  failed  at  this  stage.  Therefore,  this  has  been  taken  as  the  line  of  de- 
marcation between  organized  districts  and  those  in  process  of  organization. 

The  total  area  of  lands  under  this  classification  is  681,600  acres,  exclu- 
sive of  areas  common  to  both  old  and  new  districts  except  in  the  case  of 
outlet  districts  which  are  included.  That  the  average  size  of  each  district — 
6,682  acres — is  51  per  cent  greater  than  the  average  of  those  already  formed, 
indicates  a  tendency  towards  drainage  work  on  a  more  comprehensive  scale. 

About  60  per  cent  of  the  new  districts  will  be  organized  under  the  Levee 
Act.  which  includes  practically  all  of  the  large  ones.  There  seems  to  be  a 
growing  sentiment  among  drainage  attorneys  in  favor  of  this  act.  Both  of 
the  drainage  laws  have  been  so  amended  from  time  to  time  that  there  is  now 
very  little  difference  between  them.  The  fact  that  under  the  Levee  Act  all 
proceedings  are  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  County  Court  and  that  the  rec- 
ords are  more  accessible  and  better  kept  is  largely  responsible  for  the  in- 
creased use  of  it. 


18 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  3. — Comparison  of  the  several  watersheds  as  regards  new  drainage  districts  in 

process  of  organisation 


Watershed 


No 


Name 


Drainage  districts 


Area  in 

square 

miles 


Number 


Total 
acreage 


Acres 

per  1,000 

square  miles 

of 

watershed 


Per- 
centage 

of 
water- 
shed 


1 
2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
26 

27 
28 


Skillet  Fork .••;•••. 

Vermilion  (into  Illinois  River) .  .  . 

Cache 

Lake  Michigan 

Sangamon 

Des  Plaines 

Saline 

Salt  Creek  (into  Sangamon  River) 

Macoupin  Creek 

Kaskaskia 

South  Fork,  Sangamon  River 

Wabash 

Fox 

Kankakee 

Kishwaukee 

Big  Vermilion(intoWabashRiver) 

Illinois 

Embarrass 

Little  Wabash 

Spoon 

Mississippi 

Big  Muddy 

Rock . 

Mackinaw 

Green 

Pecatonica 

Crooked  Creek 

Ohio 

State 


1,050 

1,290 

720 

780 

2,340 

1,220 

1,230 

1,870 

970 

5,670 

1,130 

2,680 

1,630 

2,150 

1,200 

1,250 

6,940 

2,260 

2,180 

1,790 

6,350 

2,360 

2,270 

1,120 

970 

770 

1,360 

800 


2 
6 
3 
5 
6 
5 
5 
7 
3 

11 
4 
7 
5 
4 
3 
3 

10 
3 
3 
1 
4 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 


83,030 

54,700 

30,320 

32,060 

63,180 

32,680 

31,180 

42,730 

20,110 

103,070 

19,500 

42,750 

20,020 

17,660 

8,400 

7,460 

38,020 

8,130 

7,160 

4,240 

12,900 

3,600 

1,400 


79,076 

42,403 

42,111 

41,103 

27,000 

26,787 

25,350 

22,850 

20,730 

18,178 

17,256 

15,950 

12,282 

8,214 

7,000 

5,968 

5,478 

3,597 

3,284 

2,368 

2,032 

1,525 

617 


56,350 


102 


684,300 


12,145 


12.3 
6.6 
6.6 
6.4 
4.2 
4.2 
4.0 
3.6 
3.2 
2.8 
2.7 
2.5 
1.9 
1.3 
1.1 
0.9 
0.9 
0.6 
0.5 
0.4 
0.3 
0.2 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 


1.9 


For  convenience  Table  3  has  been  prepared  from  Table  1,  and  the  water- 
sheds arranged  in  the  order  of  their  present  activity  based  on  the  number 
of  acres  per  1,000  square  miles  of  watershed  which  are  contained  in  the  new 
projects.  It  will  be  observed  in  Table  3  that  the  total  acreage  for  the  Kas- 
kaskia and  the  Skillet  Fork  watersheds  is  larger  than  that  given  in  Table  1. 
This  is  due  to  the  large  outlet  districts  in  those  watersheds  which  include  a 
large  acreage  of  land  in  organized  districts.  Since  these  organized  districts 
are  now  inadequately  drained,  and  since  they  will  receive  almost  as  much 
benefit  from  the  outlet  districts  as  the  land  outside,  they  have  been  included 
in  the  total  acreage.  It  is  encouraging  to  note  that  work  is  being  planned  in 
twenty-three  watersheds.  The  number  of  districts  in  the  several  areas  is 
fairly  uniform,  and  the  percentage  of  each  watershed  embraced  in  new  work 


INTRODUCTION  19 

varies  from  12.3  per  cent  for  the  Skillet  Fork  to  0.1  per  cent  for  the  Rock. 
The  combined  areas  represent  1.9  per  cent  of  the  State.  This  added  to  the 
12.8  per  cent  within  organized  districts  gives  14.7  per  cent  of  the  State  which 
has  either  been  reclaimed  or  for  which  plans  are  being  made.  As  less  than 
20  per  cent  of  the  State  was  ever  in  need  of  artificial  drainage,  it  is  apparent 
that  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  work  of  complete  reclamation  has  been,  or 
is  about  to  be  accomplished. 

Two  of  the  districts  are  especially  worthy  of  mention,  not  because  of 
their  size  alone,  but  because  they  are  Outlet  Drainage  Districts  organizing 
under  Section  65a  of  the  Levee  Act  which  was  passed  by  the  Forty-ninth 
General  Assembly.  This  amendment  is  undoubtedly  the  most  important 
drainage  legislation  which  has  been  made  in  recent  years. 

The  Okaw  Valley  Outlet  Drainage  District  (No.  124,  Kaskaskia  Water- 
shed, on  map)  will  contain  approximately  70,000  acres  and  proposes  to  cut 
an  entirely  new  channel  for  the  Kaskaskia  River  from  a  point  about  three 
miles  south  of  the  Shelby- Fayette  county  line  to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Rail- 
road bridge  at  Carlyle.  The  size  of  the  new  channel  will  vary  from  a  50-ft. 
bottom  width  at  the  upper  end  to  a  120-ft.  bottom  width  at  the  lower.  The 
purpose  of  this  work  is  to  enable  the  flood  water  to  run  off  as  quickly  as  pos- 
sible and  thus  reduce  the  high  water  stage  and  overflow  period  of  the  stream. 
While  this  improvement  will  not  prevent  all  flooding  of  the  land,  it  will  un- 
doubtedly eliminate  the  minor  floods  which  have  done  so  much  damage  in  the 
past  to  the  lands  outside  of  levee  districts.  The  preliminary  estimate  of  this 
improvement  is  $30  an  acre. 

The  Skillet  Fork  Outlet  Union  Drainage  District  (No.  8  on  map)  will 
contain  78,000  acres  and  is  being  organized  to  straighten  the  Skillet  Fork 
River  from  Wayne  City,  Wayne  County,  to  the  junction  of  that  stream  with 
the  Little  Wabash  in  White  County.  The  plans  call  for  a  channel  with  a 
bottom  width  of  80  feet  at  the  upper  end  and  120  feet  at  the  lower  end. 
This  improvement  will  serve  the  same  purpose  as  that  mentioned  for  the 
Okaw  Outlet  District. 

Both  of  these  districts  contain  lands  which  are  already  in  organized  dis- 
tricts. The  Okaw  Outlet  District  includes  eight  districts  with  a  total  area 
of  36,000  acres,  and  the  Skillet  Fork  Outlet  District  contains  three  old  dis- 
tricts covering  38,000  acres.  The  existing  districts  have  taken  the  leading 
part  in  the  promotion  of  these  new  enterprises  in  order  to  provide  satisfac- 
tory outlets  for  their  own  ditches,  and  to  lower  the  high  water  stage  during 
floods. 

The  North  Vermilion  District  (No.  40),  Livingston  County,  is  another 
large  district  having  in  view  the  straightening  of  the  Vermilion  River.  It 
will  contain  37,220  acres  and  will  provide  a  much  needed  outlet  to  the  dis- 
tricts above. 


20  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

There  are  some  six  or  eight  other  districts  containing  from  8,000  to 
10,000  acres  which  are  located  along  the  smaller  streams. 

There  is  an  unusual  amount  of  interest  being  taken  in  drainage  reclama- 
tion at  present  owing  to  the  increased  value  of  farming  land,  and  areas  which 
heretofore  have  not  been  considered  feasible  drainage  projects  are  being 
studied  with  reclamation  in  view. 

3.     Overflowed  Areas 

The  location  and  extent  of  the  overflowed  areas  are  indicated  on  the 
map  and  the  amount  of  such  land  for  each  watershed  is  given  in  Table  1, 
column  7.  The  total  for  the  State  is  1,126,760  acres  which  represents  3.1 
per  cent  of  its  entire  area. 

The  damage  from  overflow  varies;  but  in  all  cases  the  losses  warrant 
the  formation  of  drainage  districts  for  improving  conditions.  On  the  aver- 
age, crops  are  lost  at  least  half  the  time,  and  along  the  larger  streams  crops 
are  rarely  harvested  oftener  than  once  in  four  years.  A  large  part  of  the 
bottoms  is  still  in  timber;  and  there  are  many  owners  who  have  given  up 
trying  to  farm  the  bottom  land  even  where  the  timber  has  been  removed. 
Lands  which  at  one  time  raised  crops  often  enough  to  pay  for  farming  them, 
are  now  idle  because  of  increased  floods  due  to  the  thousands  of  square 
miles  at  the  heads  of  the  watersheds  which  have  been  organized  into  dis- 
tricts. Frequently,  certain  rivers  get  out  of  their  banks  in  the  middle  and 
lower  reaches  when  there  is  no  rain  at  all  locally,  but  heavy  storms  at  the 
upper  end  of  the  watersheds.  It  is  this  condition  of  affairs  which  makes 
the  owners  of  this  land  feel  that  the  upper  owners  or  the  State  should  help 
them  in  correcting  these  conditions. 

The  bottoms  contain  the  most  fertile  lands  in  their  respective  communi- 
ties, since  the  soil  is  the  cream  of  the  upland  soil  which  has  been  washed 
down  and  deposited  there.  These  lands  are  consequently  the  richest  agri- 
cultural lands  in  the  State  and  constitute  an  extremely  valuable  undeveloped 
natural  resource. 

The  overflowed  areas  on  the  map  have  been  carried  upstream  till  the 
width  was  approximately  one-fourth  mile.  It  has  usually  been  considered 
that  the  bottoms  should  be  at  least  one-half  mile  wride  in  order  to  make  any 
drainage  investment  profitable.  But  judging  from  successful  districts  already 
constructed,  it  is  evident  that  a  certain  amount  of  channel  correction  pays 
even  for  the  narrower  areas. 

Along  some  of  the  streams  there  are  small  pockets  here  and  there  which 
are  not  shown  on  the  map  as  they  are  too  small  for  anything  but  private 
reclamation. 

In  Lake  and  Winnebago  counties  there  is  a  large  amount  of  lands  along 
the  Fox  River  which  has  been  classified  as  wet  uplands  rather  than  as  over- 
flowed lands,  although  a  certain  percentage  might  be  considered  as  such. 


INTRODUCTION  21 

Practically  all  the  bottom  areas  along  the  Green  River  have  been  formed 
into  districts,  and  in  this  respect  this  watershed  leads  all  the  others. 

The  Kankakee,  Big  Vermilion,  Vermilion,  and  Mackinaw  watersheds 
have  no  remaining  overflowed  areas  of  consequence  and  no  such  areas  are 
included  in  this  report. 

All  the  other  watersheds  contain  overflowed  lands  ranging  in  amount 
from  4,000  to  138,500  acres.  The  Pecatonica,  Crooked  Creek,  and  Big 
Muddy  watersheds  are  100  per  cent  unreclaimed;  while  the  Spoon  is  prac- 
tically so,  having  but  one  small  district. 

As  mentioned  earlier  in  this  report,  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom  lands 
is  much  more  complicated  than  is  that  of  the  uplands,  due  to  the  need  for 
protection  against  a  larger  amount  of  flood  waters.  The  areas  along  the 
Mississippi,  Illinois,  Ohio,  and  Wabash  rivers  are  more  or  less  concentrated 
and  the  problem  is  confined  to  the  building  of  levees  to  keep  out  the  river 
water,  the  construction  of  diversion  ditches  for  the  hill  waters  and  of  interior 
ditches  for  collecting  the  rain  water,  and  the  installation  of  pumping  plants 
for  removing  the  latter  water  from  the  district.  These  river  channels  are 
much  larger  and  straighter  and  therefore  better  able  to  carry  the  flood  waters 
than  are  the  smaller  interior  streams.  The  latter  streams  have  very  little  fall 
and  wind  from  one  side  of  the  flood  plain  to  the  other,  their  crookedness 
complicating  the  problem  considerably. 

In  the  past,  districts  have  been  scattered  at  random  along  the  streams, 
each  one  working  independently  and  with  no  thought  as  to  the  effect  its 
plans  might  have  on  the  lands  above  and  below.  Where  levees  have  been 
built,  they  have  as  a  rule  been  placed  too  close  to  the  stream,  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  lands  on  the  opposite  side;  and  where  levees  have  been  built 
on  both  sides,  sufficient  floodways  have  not  been  left,  with  disastrous  results 
to  the  levees  themselves  or  to  the  lands  above.  In  other  words,  there  has 
been  no  coordination  and  it  has  been  a  case  of  each  district  for  itself.  Also 
no  attempt  has  been  made  to  get  at  the  root  of  the  trouble  and  to  reduce  the 
flood  heights  in  the  streams. 

It  is  now  realized  that  the  overflowed  land  cannot  be  reclaimed  in  this 
way.  There  is  one  problem  which  is  common  to  all  the  bottom  lands  in  each 
valley,  namely,  that  of  removing  all  obstacles  to  the  flow  of  the  stream,  so 
that  the  water  can  get  away  and  not  be  held  in  storage  for  days  or  even 
weeks  at  a  time.  This  means  straightening  and  cleaning  the  streams  as 
much  as  is  economically  possible  so  as  to  make  the  distance  which  the  water 
has  to  travel  less  and  to  reduce  the  friction  between  the  flowing  water  and 
the  banks  and  beds  of  the  stream. 

The  majority  of  the  land  owners  recognize  channel  correction  as  the  first 
step,  and  a  number  of  districts  are  being  held  back  because  the  experience 
of  others  has  taught  the  uselessness  of  building  either  ditches  or  levees 
until  the  channel  itself  is  improved. 


22  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

Hence  each  stream  presents  one  and  the  same  reclamation  problem. 
Each  must  be  studied  as  a  unit  and  by  disinterested  parties.  The  land  owners 
could  rarely  agree  as  to  what  changes  should  be  made  in  the  channel  because 
of  the  effect  which  such  changes  might  have  on  their  individual  lands.  It  is 
because  of  this,  that  the  more  progressive  land  owners  are  urging  the  State  to 
assist  them  in  organizing,  financing,  and  constructing  such  improvements. 
These  men  have  recently  organized  the  Illinois  Drainage  and  Rivers  Im- 
provement Association  which  has  for  its  objects,  (1)  the  dissemination  of 
information  regarding  the  vast  natural  resources  that  are  being  absolutely 
wasted  by  allowing  the  productivity  of  the  million  and  more  acres  of  bottom 
lands  to  be  destroyed  by  floods  which  are  preventable  with  intelligent  and 
concerted  action;  and  (2)  the  adopting  of  laws  giving  State  aid  to  outlet 
drainage  projects  through  a  State  Department,  all  preliminary  expenses  to 
be  borne  by  the  State,  the  cost  of  construction  to  be  underwritten  by  the 
State,  and  reimbursement  to  be  made  by  the  land  owners  concerned  when 
the  reclaimed  areas  are  producing. 

The  point  has  been  reached  where  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom  lands 
must  be  done  on  a  more  comprehensive  scale  than  was  necessary  in  the  case 
of  the  uplands.  It  was  to  make  such  work  possible  that  the  1917  Legislature 
added  Section  65a  to  the  drainage  law,  and  as  previously  stated  the  middle 
Kaskaskia  valley  and  the  lower  Skillet  Fork  valley  are  organizing  under  this 
provision  to  provide  the  best  possible  outlet  for  the  flood  waters.  However, 
the  Kaskaskia  improvement  stops  at  Carlyle,  about  midway  of  the  stream, 
and  the  flood  stages  here  will  be  much  higher  than  ever  before  and  the  land 
at  the  lower  end  of  the  new  district  will  suffer  from  backwater. 

In  the  following  chapters,  the  conditions  in  each  watershed  are  dis- 
cussed in  more  detail. 

It  was  not  the  purpose  of  this  investigation  to  locate  all  the  upland  areas 
which  needed  more  drainage;  but  in  the  course  of  the  work,  certain  such 
areas  were  specifically  mentioned  and  it  was  decided  to  show  them  on  the 
map  and  list  them  in  the  tables.  It  must  be  understood  distinctly  that  this 
is  only  a  partial  list  of  such  areas.  Undoubtedly  other  areas,  just  as  much 
in  need  of  drainage  as  those  shown,  have  been  omitted.  The  organization 
of  districts  in  such  locations  will  change  the  values  and  percentages  in  the 
tables.  The  total  amount  of  the  wet  areas  indicated  is  373,340  acres  which 
is  approximately  1  per  cent  of  the  State. 

The  colored  areas  on  the  map,  taken  together,  constitute  18.6  per  cent 
of  the  State.  This  may  be  considered  the  drainage  opportunity.  Although 
14.5  per  cent  either  has  been  or  is  being  cared  for,  leaving  4.1  per  cent  to  be 
reclaimed,  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  it  is  a  matter  of  only  a  short  time 
until  the  reclamation  of  the  State  will  be  completed,  for  from  now  on  the 
work  will  progress  much  more  slowly,  unless  the  State  decides  to  take  a 
hand  in  the  matter  and  speed  up  the  work. 


INTRODUCTION  23 


Difficulties  Experienced  by  Organized  Districts 

legal 

Most  of  the  trouble  which  districts  have  had  has  been  of  a  legal  nature. 
From  the  time  the  swamp  and  overflowed  land  came  into  the  possession  of 
the  State  as  a  gift  from  the  Federal  Goverment,  the  State  Legislatures  have 
tried  through  the  enactment  of  laws  to  make  it  possible  for  those  who  bought 
the  land  to  reclaim  it.  Since  there  was  no  provision  in  the  State  Constitu- 
tion for  the  enactment  of  drainage  laws,  and  since  the  construction  of  ditches 
or  drains  across  lands  without  the  consent  of  their  owners  was  contrary  to 
the  common  law,  the  drainage  acts  of  the  General  Assemblies  up  to  1870 
were  declared  unconstitutional.  In  that  year  and  again  in  1878,  the  Con- 
stitution was  revised  and  a  drainage  provision  included,  under  which  in  1879 
two  distinct  and  independent  drainage  acts  were  passed,  commonly  known 
as  the  Levee  Act  and  the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  The  placing  of  both  of  these 
Acts  on  the  statute  books  was  a  serious  mistake  to  which  has  been  due  most 
of  the  trouble  districts  have  had.  Since  1879,  each  General  Assembly  has 
passed  several  amendments  to  these  Acts,  whereby  the  organization  of  drain- 
age districts  might  be  more  readily  carried  out;  in  all,  114  such  amend- 
ments have  been  passed. 

In  view  of  all  the  time  and  effort  that  have  been  expended  on  them,  it 
would  seem  that  the  drainage  laws  would  be  thoroughly  satisfactory ;  but  as 
a  matter  of  fact  drainage  districts  have  been  organized  under  the  greatest 
legal  difficulties.  However,  this  condition  of  affairs  cannot  justly  be  charged 
to  the  State ;  and  the  blame  must  be  borne  in  large  part  by  those  who  desired 
legislation  but  did  not  know  definitely  what  they  wanted.  Too  many  amend- 
ments have  been  passed  to  meet  certain  local  situations  without  a  careful 
study  as  to  the  effect  they  might  have  on  the  State  as  a  whole.  The  result 
of  this  patching  process  is  that  our  drainage  laws  are  very  complex,  and  are 
inadequate  to  meet  present  needs. 

Since  the  two  Acts  were  passed,  they  have  been  construed  numerous 
times  by  the  Supreme  Court,  and  in  some  decisions  it  is  not  clear  as  to  which 
Act  is  being  considered.    This  has  added  to  the  confusion. 

No  legal  difficulties  have  arisen  where  practically  all  the  owners  have 
been  in  favor  of  drainage,  as  in  these  cases  there  were  no  objectors  to  pick 
flaws  in  the  form  of  petition,  court  procedure,  etc.  Fortunately  this  has  been 
true  for  a  great  many  districts,  especially  the  small  ones. 

Where  large  areas  have  been  involved,  naturally  there  has  been  more 
or  less  opposition.  Many  districts  have  had  years  of  litigation  before  they 
were  finally  organized,  and  some  have  failed  in  the  effort.  There  are  ex- 
amples of  districts  which  have  spent  almost  as  much  in  court  costs  and  attor- 
ney fees  as  in  digging  ditches. 


24  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


ENGINEERING 

Drainage  commissioners  have  not  always  appreciated  the  importance  of 
correct  engineering  design,  nor  have  they  always  chosen  competent  engineers 
to  plan  their  works.  Too  often,  surveyors  who  have  not  been  fitted  by  train- 
ing or  experience  for  drainage  work,  have  been  appointed  to  design  drainage 
systems.  Many  districts  have  learned  to  their  cost  that  good  engineering  is 
the  best  insurance  against  failure.  Also,  some  engineers  and  commissioners 
have  been  guilty,  of  the  practice  of  making  their  estimates  much  too  low  in 
order  to  avoid  opposition,  and  then  making  additional  assessments  to  com- 
plete the  work.  This  procedure  has  naturally  resulted  in  much  unsatisfac- 
tory work  and  has  reacted  against  drainage  reclamation. 

The  engineering  profession  is  largely  to  blame  for  this  state  of  affairs. 
In  the  past,  engineers  have  not  considered  drainage  work  as  worthy  of  their 
attention  and  have  been  content  to  leave  all  of  this  practice  to  local  surveyors. 
Our  universities  have  taken  the  same  attitude,  and  it  is  only  in  the  last  few 
years  that  our  own  State  University  has  given  any  instruction  along  drainage 
and  flood  protection  lines.  Today,  however,  many  of  the  best  known  engi- 
neers in  the  country  are  engaged  in  work  of  this  kind,  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  there  should  be  any  more  difficulty  from  this  source. 

PHYSICAL 

Many  districts  are  in  need  of  better  outlets,  which  can  only  be  secured 
through  the  improvement  of  the  outlet  stream  into  which  they  empty.  Ex- 
amples are  to  be  found  in  nearly  every  watershed.  The  Vermilion  District, 
located  in  Iroquois,  Ford,  and  Livingston  counties,  is  one  of  these.  Here  is  a 
district  of  38,000  acres  which  is  one  of  the  best  in  the  State,  yet  the  Vermilion 
River  into  which  it  flows  is  smaller  than  the  main  ditch  of  this  district.  The 
North  Vermilion  district  is  now  being  organized  to  remedy  this  condition. 
Along  the  Embarrass,  Little  Wabash,  Kaskaskia,  Saline,  and  other  rivers 
there  are  districts  which  will  never  be  entirely  successful  till  the  streams 
themselves  are  improved. 

Much  trouble  is  experienced  along  the  Illinois  River  because  of  the 
Chicago  Sanitary  District,  which  the  land  owners  claim  has  raised  the  water 
level  about  four  feet.  Because  of  this  some  of  the  districts  have  had  to 
strengthen  their  levees,  and  thousands  of  acres  of  the  best  agricultural  lands 
which  were  formerly  farmed  are  now  idle. 

The  Kankakee  watershed  was  originally  one  of  the  wettest  in  the  State. 
The  map  shows  the  large  amount  of  drainage  work  which  has  been  done, 
and  now  there  are  few  swampy  areas  remaining.  Conditions  were  especially 
bad  above  Momence,  due  to  the  rock  ledge  in  the  bottom  of  the  river.  Some 
years  ago  this  natural  dam  was  lowered  about  two  feet  with  great  benefit  to 
the  surrounding  country.  Most  of  this  territory  is  now  farmed,  but  the 
ground  water  is  still  too  near  the  surface  for  the  best  growth  of  crops,  and 


INTRODUCTION  25 

there  is  further  demand  for  improvement  by  again  lowering  the  bed  of  the 
stream  at  this  point.  The  rock  bottom  extends  for  about  two  miles,  and  the 
river  is  about  300  feet  wide,  which  makes  the  undertaking  a  costly  one.  The 
Kankakee  River  is  the  outlet  of  a  large  area  in  Indiana  which  would  also 
be  benefited  by  this  improvement  and  some  cooperative  agreement  might  be 
arranged  between  the  two  states  for  carrying  out  this  project,  if  after  in- 
vestigation it  is  found  that  the  additional  flow  of  water  down  the  Kankakee 
River  would  not  be  detrimental  to  the  Illinois  waterway  now  under  con- 
struction. 

Along  a  number  of  streams  dams  have  been  built,  for  milling  purposes 
usually,  though  in  the  case  of  the  Illinois  River,  navigation  was  the  principal 
object.  These  mill  dams  are  causing  the  flooding  of  large  areas  and  should 
be  removed,  where  they  have  ceased  to  fulfill  the  function  for  which  they 
were  constructed.  As  regards  the  Illinois  River  dams,  complaints  have  been 
made  of  their  existence  in  the  belief  that  they  have  contributed  to  flood  con- 
ditions. However  the  Division  of  Waterways  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  would 
be  against  the  interest  of  navigation  to  remove  these  dams  until  the  contro- 
versy with  the  Government  is  settled,  relative  to  the  amount  of  water  to  be 
diverted  from  Lake  Michigan.  Should  the  present  flow  be  curtailed  mate- 
rially, it  would  be  impossible  for  boats  to  navigate  the  Illinois  River  during 
several  months  of  the  dry  summer  season  if  the  dams  were  removed. 

Obstacles  Preventing  New  Reclamation  Work 

Ignorance  on  the  part  of  a  large  proportion  of  the  land  owners  as  to  the 
engineering  and  economic  features  of  drainage  is  without  doubt  the  main 
obstacle  in  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom  lands  of  the  State.  They  believe 
that  the  expenditure  will  ruin  them  instead  of  being  an  excellent  investment. 
They  are  standing  in  their  own  light,  and  should  be  made  to  see  that  they  are 
losing  money  every  year  that  they  defer  reclamation  and  allow  such  land  to 
remain  unproductive. 

Section  44  of  the  drainage  law  as  amended  by  the  50th  General  Assem- 
bly is  proving  a  serious  drawback  in  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  State. 
Under  this  amendment,  a  district  which  has  been  fully  organized  by  the 
court,  and  which  has  incurred  obligations  in  the  way  of  engineers',  attorneys' 
and  commissioners'  fees,  can  abandon  the  district  at  any  time  before  construc- 
tion contracts  are  let  by  the  payment  of  court  costs  only,  which  does  not 
include  the  above  mentioned  fees.  Several  districts  have  availed  themselves 
of  this  law  and  abandoned  their  organization.  While  it  is  only  right  that 
districts  should  be  allowed  to  dissolve  if  so  minded,  it  is  also  right  that  they 
should  be  made  to  pay  all  obligations  incurred,  and  certainly  the  legislature 
must  have  intended  "court  costs"  to  cover  all  expenses.  However,  the  courts 
have  decided  otherwise,  and  certain  engineers  and  attorneys  have  lost  all  the 
time  and  money  which  they  have  spent  in  behalf  of  these  districts.    With  this 


26  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

in  mind,  few  engineers  and  attorneys  will  undertake  drainage  work  unless 
their  remuneration  is  assured  from  the  petitioners  individually,  and  few  land 
owners  will  be  willing  to  assume  this  responsibility. 

Other  amendments  have  been  passed  to  meet  the  needs  of  individual  dis- 
tricts which  have  worked  hardships  on  those  in  other  parts  of  the  State.  In 
fact  the  drainage  laws  should  be  revised ;  those  provisions  which  have  stood 
the  test  of  time  should  be  retained,  those  which  are  confusing  or  contradic- 
tory should  be  clarified  or  omitted,  and  those  which  are  a  menace  should  be 
eliminated. 

Most  of  the  reclaimable  areas  are  located  in  the  river  and  creek  bottoms. 
As  previously  stated  the  better  informed  land  owners  are  beginning  to  see 
the  uselessness  of  piece-meal  reclamation.  Here  flood  prevention  is  the  first 
step,  flood  protection  the  second,  and  drainage  third.  The  last  mentioned  can 
be  handled  through  local  districts,  but  the  first  and  possibly  the  second  are 
problems  common  to  entire  valleys.  Flood  conditions  should  be  prevented 
or  rather  reduced  as  much  as  possible  through  channel  corrections;  cer- 
tain portions  of  the  valleys  will  require  levees  to  completely  protect  the  bot- 
tom lands. 

The  forming,  by  the  petition  method,  of  an  outlet  district  embracing 
an  entire  stream  extending  through  several  counties,  is  an  undertaking  which 
might  well  discourage  the  most  ardent  drainage  enthusiast.  Though  the 
majority  are  in  favor  of  doing  something  to  better  conditions,  they  naturally 
have  diverse  opinions  as  to  just  what  that  should  be.  Here,  as  elsewhere, 
there  are  those  who  are  against  improvements  of  all  kinds  and  would  oppose 
the  project  throughout.  Even  before  the  petition  could  be  prepared,  exten- 
sive surveys  would  have  to  be  made  and  plans  drawn  up  indicating  in  a  gen- 
eral way  at  least  the  nature  of  the  improvement.  This  involves  a  considerable 
initial  expense  which  would  have  to  be  borne  by  someone.  The  circulating 
of  the  petition  requires  a  large  amount  of  time,  patience,  and  effort.  Then 
there  are.  the  legal  expenses  incident  to  organization  which  would  have  to  be 
guaranteed  by  the  promoters  in  case  the  district  failed  to  materialize.  These 
expenses  would  be  unusually  heavy,  for  in  a  district  of  this  size  the  objectors 
would  no  doubt  carry  their  fight  to  the  Supreme  Court.  For  these  reasons 
the  reclamation  of  the  bottom  lands  will  in  all  probability  proceed  slowly 
unless  the  State  decides  to  cooperate  in  the  undertaking.  Such  cooperation 
might  be  along  some  of  the  following  lines : 

1.  An  educational  campaign  might  be  conducted  through  the  Depart- 
ment of  Registration  and  Education  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  the  engi- 
neering, financial,  economic,  and  other  phases  of  reclamation,  thereby  bring- 
ing about  better  cooperation  among  the  owners  themselves. 

2.  Topographic  surveys  and  maps  might  be  made  for  those  river  val- 
leys which  have  not  already  been  mapped.  Since  the  State  is  engaged  in 
the  systematic  survey  of  all  the  lands  within  its  boundaries,  it  would  seem 


INTRODUCTION  27 

an  easy  matter  to  hasten  the  mapping  of  the  river  valleys  so  that  such  maps 
might  be  available  for  planning  drainage  improvements,  and  thus  save  dupli- 
cation of  effort  and  expense. 

3.  The  carrying  out  of  the  scientific  engineering  studies  necessary  to 
determine  the  amount  and  rate  of  runoff  in  the  several  watersheds  would 
be  of  the  greatest  value,  since  reclamation  plans  can  not  be  intelligently  made 
without  this  information.  Undoubtedly  the  cooperation  of  the  U.  S.  Geo- 
logical Survey  and  the  Drainage  Investigations  Division  of  the  U.  S.  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  could  be  secured  in  connection  with  such  studies. 

4.  The  drainage  laws  should  by  all  means  be  simplified,  so  that  the 
required  majority  of  land  owners  in  any  community  who  desire  to  improve 
their  lands  by  a  system  of  combined  drainage  should  be  able  to  do  so  without 
unnecessary  delay  and  expense. 

5.  A  special  provision  might  be  made  in  the  law,  applicable  to  bottom 
lands.  This  should  be  somewhat  similar  to  Section  65a  of  the  Levee  Act. 
But  the  petition  method  of  getting  the  project  into  court  should  be  improved 
upon,  so  as  to  make  this  step  in  the  procedure  of  organization  less  difficult 
of  accomplishment. 

6.  A  Division  in  one  of  the  State  Departments  for  advising  with  drain- 
age commissioners  and  engineers  would  be  of  the  greatest  value.  The  ap- 
proval of  drainage  plans  should  not  be  compulsory,  and  would  not  need  to  be 
so  to  accomplish  the  desired  results. 

7.  Assistance  in  financing  the  larger  projects,  so  that  the  land  owners 
would  not  be  burdened  with  assessments  till  the  land  was  producing,  might 
also  be  given  serious  consideration. 

The  reclamation  of  the  bottom  lands  will  result  in  the  improvement  of 
the  highways  and  in  the  educational,  social,  and  industrial  development  of 
these  portions  of  the  State.  Entire  communities  will  be  benefited  more  or 
less  directly  as  well  as  the  owners  of  the  overflowed  lands.  The  increase 
in  the  value  of  property  will  add  to  the  revenue  of  the  counties  and  State, 
and  for  this  reason,  if  for  no  other,  the  reclamation  of  these  lands  should 
receive  the  careful  consideration  of  the  countv  and  State  authorities. 


CHAPTER  II— MISSISSIPPI  RIVER  WATERSHED 

This  watershed  extends  the  entire  length  of  the  State,  and,  as  con- 
sidered in  this  report,  contains  6,350  square  miles  of  territory  in  Illinois. 
Fifty-one  drainage  and  levee  districts,  embracing  500,300  acres,  have 
been  formed,  and  four  such  districts  are  now  in  process  of  organization, 
which,  if  effected,  will  add  129,000  acres  to  the  above  total. 

Some   105,700  acres   of   bottom   land  remain   to   be  reclaimed  in   this 

Table  4. — Drainage  data  for  the  Mississippi  River  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organized  drainage  districts 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 


Savanna  and  York 

Johnson  Creek  Levee  and  Drainage 

Cattail 

Summit 

Meredosia  L.  and  D 

Hampton  No.  1 

North  Edwards  Special 

Edwards  River 

Drury 

Union  No.  1 

Bay  Island  D.  and  L.  No.  1 

Keithsburg 

Henderson  County  No.  3 

Henderson  County  No.  1 

Henderson  County  No.  2 

Niota 

Hunt  D.  and  L 

Lima  Lake  D.  and  L 

Indian  Grave  D.  and  L 

South  Quincy  D.  and  L 

Fall  Creek 

Sny  Island  D.  and  L 

Cahokia  Creek  D.  and  L 

Wood  River  D.  and  L 

Indian  Creek  Mutual  (Private) 

Chouteau  Island  D.  and  L 

Chouteau,  Nameoki  and  Venice  D.  and  L.   (Out 

side  of  No.  29) 

County  Ditch  D.  and  L.  (Outside  of  No.  29) , 

East  Side  Levee  and  Sanitary  District 

Canteen  Creek 

Falling  Springs 

Prairie  du  Pont  D.  and  L 

Wilson  and  Wecker  D.  and  L.  No.  6 

Columbia  D.  and  L.  No.  3 

Harrisonville  and  Ivy  Landing  D.  and  L.  No.  2. . . 

Moredock  and  Ivy  Landing  No.  1 

Fort  Chartres  and  Ivy  Landing  D.  and  L.  No.  5.  . 
Stringtown  and  Ft.  Chartres  Levee  No.  4 


Acres 

Carroll 

3,400 

Whiteside-Carroll 

3,300 

Whiteside 

6,210 

Whiteside 

1,240 

Whiteside-Rock  Island 

8,300 

Rock  Island 

2,000 

Henry 

5,000 

Mercer 

2,800 

Rock  Island 

5,300 

Rock  Island-Mercer 

5,270 

Mercer 

18,300 

Mercer 

1,500 

Henderson 

2,300 

Henderson 

9,120 

Henderson 

7,620 

Hancock 

1,000 

Hancock 

16,000 

Adams 

13,480 

Adams 

19,000 

Adams 

5,590 

Adams-Pike 

3,000 

Adams-Pike 

110,000 

Madison 

4,000 

Madison 

4,390 

Madison 

600 

Madison 

2,360 

Madison 

4,900 

Madison 

2,400 

Madison-St.  Clair 

65,860 

Madison-St.  Clair 

1,640 

St.  Clair 

920 

St.  Clair 

5,700 

Monroe 

1,600 

Monroe 

13,500 

Monroe 

10,000 

Monroe 

16,700 

Monroe 

10,500 

Monroe-Randolph 

3,200 

MISSISSIPPI   RIVER   WATERSHED 


29 


Table  4. — Drainage  data  for  the  Mississippi  River  watershed — Concluded 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


Marias  Giteau  D.  and  L 

Edgar  Lakes  D.  and  L 

Kaskaskia  Island 

Degonia  and  Fountain  Bluff  D.  and  L 

Jones  Pond  Mutual  (Included  in  D.  and  F.  B.  Dist.) 

Boones  Pond  (Included  in  D.  and  F.  B.  Dist.) 

Big  Lake  Speciala 

Grand  Tower  Drainage  and  Levee 

Preston  D.  and  L 

Miller  Pond  D.  and  L 

Clear  Creek  D.  and  L 

East  Cape  Girardeau  and  Clear  Creek  D.  and  L. .  .  . 
North  Alexander  D.  and  L 

Total 


Acres 

Randolph 

520 

Randolph 

2,000 

Randolph 

10,000 

Jackson 

29,260 

Jackson 

Jackson 

Jackson 

4,500 

Jackson 

2,620 

Union 

16,200 

Union 

4,300 

Union 

19,130 

Alexander 

9,370 

Alexander 

4,400 

500,300 


Districts  being  organized 


Washington  Township 

Along  Henderson  River. .  .  . 

Long  Island  D.  and  L 

East  Wood  River  D.  and  L 

Total 


Carroll 
Henderson 
Adams 
Madison 


2,000 

5,000 

5,000 

900 

12,900 


Overflowed  areas 


Along  Mississippi  North  of  Savanna 

Along  Mississippi  South  of  Savanna 

Along  Mississippi  South  of  Rock  Island . . . 

Along  Edwards  River 

Along  Edwards  River 

Along  Henderson  River 

Along  Cahokia  Creek 

Along  Mississippi  River  South  of  Wood  R. 
South  of  Wilson  and  Wecker  D.  and  L. .  .  . 

Along  Mississippi  River 

Area  around  Kaskaskia  Island  District .  .  . 

Along  Marys  River 

South  of  Olive  Branch 


Total 


Jo  Daviess-Carroll 

Carroll-Whiteside 

Rock  Island 

Henry 

Mercer 

Warren-Henderson 

Madison-Macoupin 

Madison 

Monroe 

Randolph 

Randolph 

Randolph 

Alexander 


14,000 

13,000 
4,500 
2,700 
7,000 

14,500 
6,000 
4,000 
2,500 

13.000 
2,500 
6.000 

16,000 

105,700 


Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


watershed.     Table  4  gives  the  name,  size,  and  reference  number  of  each 
district.     The  number  refers  to  the  map  which  accompanies  this  report. 


iTotal  area  is  16,050  acres,  11,550  acres  in  Degonia  and  Fountain  muff  District. 


30  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

A  more  detailed  description  of  the  drainage  work  which  has  been 
done  and  of  that  which  remains  to  be  done  will  be  taken  up,  commencing 
at  the  northern  end  of  the  watershed. 

Practically  all  of  Jo  Daviess  County  drains  into  the  Mississippi 
River.  This  county  is  the  highest  in  the  State  and  its  topography  is 
rough  in  detail.  Nearly  every  square  mile  has  a  relief  of  more  than  100 
feet,  so  there  is  no  need  for  artificial  drainage.  In  the  southwestern  cor- 
ner of  the  county,  and  extending  into  Carroll  County,  there  are  14,000 
acres  of  river  bottom  land  which  are  subject  to  overflow.  However, 
this  soil  is  very  sandy  and  has  a  low  agricultural  value ;  and  it  is  doubtful 
whether  its  reclamation  is  worth  while,  at  least  at  the  present  time.  This 
area  is  now  being  used  as  a  proving  ground  of  the  Ordnance  Department 
of  the  U.  S.  Army. 

The  northwestern  two-thirds  of  Carroll  County  is  in  this  watershed. 
Above  Savanna,  the  flood  plain  along  the  river  is  low  and  narrow,  except 
in  the  northwestern  corner  of  the  county.  Here  a  tract  of  some  2,000 
acres  was  incorporated  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  into  Washington 
Township  Drainage  District  No.  1.  The  plans  called  for  the  construction 
of  levees  and  the  installation  of  a  pumping  plant.  The  first  assessment 
had  been  made,  when  the  objectors  went  into  court  and  defeated  the 
assessment  on  the  grounds  of  faulty  organization.  An  attempt  is  now 
being  made  to  organize  this  area  under  the  Levee  Act. 

Between  Savanna  and  Fulton,  the  flood  plain  on  the  east  of  the  river 
is  from  one  to  two  miles  in  width  and  contains  about  13,000  acres  of 
reclaimable  land.  East  of  this  area,  the  second  bottoms  form  a  sand 
ridge  from  ten  to  twenty  feet  high  and  a  mile  or  more  in  width.  Be- 
tween this  ridge  and  the  bluffs  there  were  two  large  swampy  areas 
which  have  been  incorporated  into  the  Savanna  and  York  and  the  John- 
son Creek  districts. 

The  Savanna  and  York  District,  organized  in  1906,  contains  3,400 
acres.  The  upper  end  of  this  district  is  about  three  miles  southeast  of 
Savanna.  The  drainage  works  constructed  consist  of  five  miles  of  open 
main  ditch,  with  an  outlet  in  Plum  River  at  the  northern  end  of  the 
district.  A  small  creek,  which  empties  into  the  upper  end  of  the  ditch, 
brings  down  so  much  sand  from  the  hills  and  deposits  it  in  the  ditch 
that  it  is  impossible  to  keep  the  channel  open.  To  overcome  this 
difficulty,  two  30-inch  pumps  are  used  to  raise  the  water  of  the  district 
over  the  bar  thus  formed.  Considerable  opposition  was  met  with  in  the 
organization  of  this  district  through  the  influence  of  duck  clubs.  The 
success  of  this  district  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  land,  which  in 
its  original  state  was  worth  not  over  $10  an  acre,  is  now  valued  at  $250 
an  acre. 

The  Johnson   Creek   Drainage   and   Levee   District   was   organized 


MISSISSIPPI   RIVER   WATERSHED  31 

in  1908  to  reclaim  3,300  acres  of  swampy  land,  partly  covered  by  a  lake, 
which  was  fed  by  Johnson  Creek  from  the  northeast.  About  600  acres 
within  the  district  are  too  wet  to  cultivate.  Also  there  are  some  lands 
outside  of  the  district  which  should  be  annexed.  The  Commissioners 
are  now  trying  to  organize  a  sub-district,  but  are  meeting  with  strong 
opposition. 

To  the  south  of  the  Johnson  Creek  District  and  just  east  of  Fulton, 
is  the  Cattail  District  which  was  organized  in  1908  for  the  purpose  of 
reclaiming  6,210  acres  at  the  entrance  to  Cattail  Valley,  which  was  formed 
by  some  pre-glacial  stream.  The  remainder  of  the  land  in  this  valley, 
which  now  drains  to  the  north,  is  in  the  Summit  Drainage  District. 
There  are  only  1,240  acres  in  this  district.  Both  of  these  projects  have 
accomplished  their  purpose  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  land  owners. 

Meredosia  Valley,  which  lies  between  the  Garden  Plain  and  the  Coe 
Uplands,  is  drained  through  the  Meredosia  ditch,  which  is  the  boundary 
line  between  Whiteside  and  Rock  Island  counties.  The  Meredosia  Levee 
and  Drainage  District  has  constructed  two  and  one-half  miles  of  levee  at 
the  upper  end  of  the  district  and  about  ten  miles  of  open  ditch.  Three 
bond  issues  have  been  made  since  the  district  was  organized  in  1895. 
About  $75,000  have  been  invested  in  a  pumping  station  and  equipment 
which  consists  of  a  30-  and  a  36-inch  centrifugal  pump  driven  by  steam. 
It  is  necessary  to  operate  the  pumps  for  about  four  months  during  the 
year.  The  market  value  of  the  land  ranges  from  $100  to  $200  an  acre.  Just 
south  of  Watertown  and  at  the  western  end  of  Pleasant  Valley,  the 
Hampton  Township  Drainage  District  No.  1  is  located.  The  remaining 
districts  in  this  valley  have  their  outlets  in  the  Rock  River  and  are  treated 
under  that  watershed. 

Along  the  Mississippi  below  the  mouth  of  Rock  River,  there  is  an 
area  of  4,500  acres  of  overflowed  land  which,  though  a  continuation  of  the 
overflowed  area  along  the  Rock  River,  has  been  listed  in  the  Mississippi 
watershed.  However,  all  of  these  lands  should  be  treated  as  a  unit  in 
any  plans  for  reclamation. 

For  a  distance  of  about  20  miles  below  the  mouth  of  the  Rock  River, 
the  Mississippi  Valley  is  narrow  and  contains  no  areas  of  overflowed 
lands  large  enough  to  pay  for  their  reclamation.  South  of  the  big  bend 
in  the  river,  however,  the  valley  widens  and  the  flood  plain  has  been 
protected  from  overflow  by  a  levee  about  18  miles  in  length.  Three 
districts  are  organized  in  this  area. 

The  Drury  Drainage  and  Levee  District,  5,300  acres,  was  organized 
in  1909,  and  extends  to  Copper  Creek  on  the  south.  The  land  is  extreme- 
ly fertile  and  the  investment  has  been  very  profitable  to  the  land  owners. 
The  levee  broke  in  1916  and  the  crops  were  destroyed.  The  break  was 
repaired  and  the  entire  levee  strengthened. 


32  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

On  the  south  side  of  Copper  Creek,  Union  District  No.  1  of  Rock 
Island  and  Mercer  counties  begins.  There  are  5,270  acres  in  this  district. 
The  levee  broke  in  the  spring  of  1920  and  not  only  were  the  crops  lost, 
but  the  lives  of  the  inhabitants  were  endangered.  Some  125  families  had 
to  move  to  higher  ground  with  loss  of  personal  goods.  Although  the 
breaks  have  been  repaired,  the  entire  levee  system  needs  strengthening. 

The  Bay  Island  Drainage  and  Levee  District,  18,300  acres,  is  at  the 
south  end  of  the  group.  About  15  miles  of  levee  and  20  miles  of  ditch 
have  been  constructed  since  the  district  was  organized  in  1907.  The  con- 
struction of  a  levee  on  the  Iowa  side  of  the  river  has  caused  the  high- 
water  stage  to  be  increased,  and  the  levees  of  the  Bay  Island  District 
should  be  raised  and  strengthened.  More  tile  drainage  is  needed  in  this 
district.  The  value  of  the  land  has  increased  from  $20  an  acre  in  1907  to 
$150  in  1920. 

Edwards  River  empties  into  the  Mississippi  above  Keithsburg,  and 
drains  the  northern  half  of  Mercer  County  and  the  southern  portion  of 
Henry  County.  At  the  eastern  end  of  this  watershed  in  Henry  County, 
the  North  Edwards  Special  District,  containing  5,000  acres,  was  organ- 
ized in  1880.  The  district  lies  along  the  river  and  is  about  one  mile  in 
width.  The  river  was  dredged  for  a  distancce  of  about  11  miles.  The 
project  has  been  a  success  and  the  commissioners  place  a  value  of  $300 
on  the  land.  From  the  western  end  of  the  North  Edwards  District  to  the 
Henry-Mercer  County  line,  the  bottom  land  is  subject  to  overflow. 
There  are  about  2,700  acres  actually  overflowed  and  probably  as  much 
more  would  be  benefited  by  the  dredging  and  straightening  of  the  stream. 

The  river  was  improved  some  years  ago  for  about  four  miles  in 
the  eastern  portion  of  Mercer  County.  An  attempt  was  made  to  organize 
this  area  into  the  Edwards  River  District,  but  opposition  was  encoun- 
tered, so  no  legal  organization  was  effected.  However  the  more  progres- 
sive owners  succeeded  in  improving  the  worst  places  in  the  stream  which 
made  it  possible  to  cultivate  the  land  right  up  to  the  banks.  The  land 
is  still  overflowed  during  flood  periods  but,  due  to  improved  channel, 
the  water  does  not  remain  very  long.  From  the  village  of  Cable  to  the 
Mississippi,  Edwards  River  overflows  its  valley  for  a  width  of  from  one- 
half  to  one  mile  and  damages  about  7,000  acres  of  land.  At  the  Rock 
Island  Southern  Railway's  power  house  just  below  Matherville,  a  dam 
was  once  constructed  to  impound  water  for  the  boilers  of  the  power  plant. 
This  power  plant  is  no  longer  used,  but  the  old  dam  remains.  A  small 
section  has  been  blown  out  and  through  this  opening  the  low  water 
flow  of  the  river  passes ;  but  at  times  of  flood,  the  dam  obstructs  the 
flow,  thereby  prolonging  the  flood  period  above,  and  should  be  removed. 

About  two-thirds  of  the  bottom  land  produces  a  crop  from  half  to 


MISSISSIPPI   RIVER   WATERSHED  33 

two-thirds  of  the  time.  The  soil  is  a  deep  brown  silt  loam,  according  to 
the  University  of  Illinois  Soil  Report  of  Mercer  County. 

In  the  Mississippi  bottoms  between  Keithsburg  and  the  mouth  of 
Edwards  River,  an  area  of  1,500  acres  was  incorporated  in  the  Keiths- 
burg District  in  1909.-  The  commissioners  have  built  approximately  four 
and  one-half  miles  of  levee  and  seven  and  one-half  miles  of  ditches  and 
operate  a  pumping  plant.  The  undertaking  has  accomplished  its  purpose 
and  the  increase  in  the  value  of  the  land  has  greatly  exceeded  the  cost 
of  construction. 

Between  Keithsburg  and  Oquawka,  the  bottom  land  is  composed 
mainly  of  dune  sand  and  is  not  worth  reclaiming.  Northeast  of  Keiths- 
burg there  is  a  wet  area  of  about  2,600  acres  which  needs  draining. 

In  Henderson  County  three  districts  have  been  formed  in  the  Mis- 
sissippi bottoms.  The  one  farthest  north  is  Henderson  County  District 
No.  3,  which  was  completed  in  1915.  It  has  constructed  ten  miles  of 
levee  which  gives  protection  to  the  2,300  acres  in  the  district.  Five  miles 
of  interior  ditches  have  been  dredged,  and  a  pumping  plant  has  been  in- 
stalled for  disposing  of  the  excess  water.  Henderson  County  District  No. 
1  joins  No.  3  on  the  south.  There  are  9,120  acres  in  this  district  which 
are  protected  by  nine  miles  of  levee.  Five  miles  of  ditches  have  been 
constructed  to  carry  the  rain  water  to  the  pumps.  In  1912,  when  the 
district  was  organized,  the  land  sold  for  $25  an  acre.  The  commis- 
sioners consider  the  land  to  be  worth  $300  an  acre  at  the  present  time. 
The  third  Henderson  County  District  is  No.  2  and  is  located  directly 
south  of  No.  1.  This  district  contains  7,620  acres  and  consists  of  four 
miles  of  levee  and  seven  miles  of  ditches.  The  conditions  here  are  simi- 
lar to  those  in  the  other  two  districts.  All  of  these  districts  are  con- 
sidered successful  though  they  have  had  trouble  in  maintaining  their 
levees.  To  quote  the  Secretary  of  Districts  No.  1  and  2,  "The  most 
discouraging  feature  is  the  failure  of  the  general  government  to  extend 
any  aid  whatever  in  the  repairing  and  maintaining  of  the  Mississippi 
River  levees.  The  waters  of  the  river  at  times  prove  very  destructive 
to  our  levees,  and  in  many  cases,  the  damage  is  caused  by  the  construc- 
tion of  wing-dams  in  the  river  by  the  government  which  tend  to  divert 
the  waters.  While  we  have  tried  in  various  ways  to  secure  assistance 
from  the  government,  they  have  always  withheld  it  from  us.  .   . " 

South  of  District  No.  2  in  Henderson  County,  the  overflowed  area 
along  the  Mississippi  is  too  narrow  to  pay  for  levee  protection.  Also  it  is 
cut  up  by  a  number  of  sloughs  and  bayous.  However,  these  channels 
are  fast  filling  with  the  depositions  of  the  river,  and  possibly  with  the 
increasing  value  of  agricultural  lands,  it  will  eventually  be  feasible  to  re- 
claim this  area. 

Considerable    trouble    is    experienced    in    Henderson    and    Warren 


34  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

Counties  from  Henderson  River,  which  comes  down  out  of  the  hills 
north  and  east  of  Oquawka  and  spreads  its  flood  waters  over  the  low 
lands  with  disastrous  results.  It  is  now  proposed  to  incorporate  this  area 
(No.  53  on  map)  into  a  district.  To  divert  part  of  the  flood  waters,  it  is 
proposed  to  open  a  new  channel  from  the  present  channel  just  south 
of  Bald  Bluff  straight  west  to  the  Mississippi.  To  construct  such  a 
channel  would  mean  a  depth  cut  of  60  feet  in  places,  with  a  minimum 
depth  of  10  feet.  The  old  channel  below  the  proposed  cut-off  would  be 
used  as  the  main  ditch  of  the  district.  There  are  5,000  acres  in  the  pro- 
posed district,  which  is  indicated  in  blue  on  the  map. 

Above  the  proposed  district  just  discussed,  the  overflow  along  the 
river  and  its  several  tributaries  will  average  about  one-half  mile  in  width, 
and  affects  some  14,500  acres  of  land.  If  the  proposed  cut-off  is  con- 
structed the  upper  river  will  be  much  improved. 

Occasional  destructive  floods  are  reported  along  Ellison  Creek  in 
Stronghurst  township.  The  outlet  of  this  creek  is  the  drainage  ditch  of 
Henderson  County  District  No.  2. 

The  western  half  of  Hancock  County  drains  into  the  Mississippi. 
The  topography  of  this  county  is  rolling  to  broken  and  the  natural 
drainage  is  good.  Above  Warsaw,  the  river  flows  along  the  bluffs  and 
there  is  only  one  small  area  of  overflowed  land  which  is  near  Niota  (East 
Fort  Madison).  The  construction  of  the  Keokuk  dam  caused  the  flooding 
of  some  land  here,  which  the  Mississippi  Power  Company  purchased  and 
organized  in  the  Niota  District. 

Below  Warsaw  all  the  bottom  land  in  Hancock  County  is  within 
the  Hunt  Drainage  and  Levee  District,  which  was  organized  in  1880 
and  contains  16,000  acres.  The  land  in  the  district  is  protected  by  a 
levee  about  11  miles  long  which  joins  the  levee  of  the  Lima  Lake  District 
in  Adams  County.  The  levee  was  built  in  1880,  but  has  since  been  en- 
larged and  strengthened  several  times.  The  last  work  of  this  kind  has 
just  been  completed  and  the  levee  is  now  three  feet  above  the  high 
water  mark  of  the  1851  flood.  The  levee  has  broken  several  times,  and 
all  the  land  in  the  district  completely  submerged  and  all  crops  destroyed. 
The  last  break  occurred  in  1903.  No  interior  drainage  has  been  provided 
and  there  are  now  sloughs  and  water  courses  from  the  north  end  of  the 
district  which  run  through  the  district  and  extend  into  Lima  Lake 
District  on  the  south.  These  water  courses  have  become  obstructed  with 
sediment  and;  debris,  and  there  is  much  land  that  cannot  be  cultivated, 
especially  in  the  lower  end  of  the  district,  where  there  are  some  1,400 
acres  of  such  land. 

The  county  line,  divides  the  Hunt  and  Lima  Lake  Districts,  and  has 
been  the  cause  of  trouble  for  both  districts.  Had  it  not  been  for  this  line, 
the  entire  area  would  have  been  organized  into  one  district,  and  all  the 


MISSISSIPPI   RIVER   WATERSHED  35 

area  would  undoubtedly  be  under  cultivation.  There  has  always  been  a 
dispute  as  to  plans  for  reclamation  and  as  to  the  proper  division  of  cost 
between  the  districts.  One  of  the  commissioners  of  the  Hunt  District 
advises  that  the  two  Boards  of  Commissioners  have  about  agreed  upon  a 
plan  of  drainage ;  but  the  division  of  the  cost  of  the  diversion  ditch  along 
the  bluffs,  which  is  part  of  the  proposed  plan,  has  not  been  settled.  This 
ditch  will  be  constructed  along  the  bluffs  west  of  both  districts  and  empty 
into  the  Mississippi  south  of  the  Lima  Levee  District. 

In  addition  to  the  diversion  ditch,  the  plans  call  for  the  construction 
of  a  complete  interior  drainage  system  and  the  installation  of  a  pumping 
plant. 

The  Lima  Lake  District  contains  13,480  acres,  and  has  constructed 
11  miles  of  levee  and  four  miles  of  ditches.  It  was  organized  in  1885,  and 
like  the  Hunt  district,  has  done  considerable  work  on  its  levee  from  time 
to  time.  About  5,000  acres  in  this  district  are  too  wet  to  cultivate.  It 
has  a  levee  along  the  south  boundary  along  Bear  Creek. 

On  the  south  side  of  Bear  Creek,  the  Indian  Grave  District  is  located. 
This  district  contains  19,000  acres  and  is  triangular  in  shape,  the  apex 
extending  almost  to  Quincy.  The  Mississippi  levee  is  about  one  and 
one-half  miles  from  the  river.  Fifteen  miles  of  levee  have  been  built  and 
thirty  miles  of  ditches.  This  district  has  been  overflowed  three  times 
since  its  organization  in  1880,  the  last  time  being  in  1918.  The  ditches 
are  not  complete  and  a  petition  for  an  additional  assessment  to  complete 
them  has  been  filed.  Some  1,000  acres  within  the  district  are  useless  at 
present. 

The  area  of  about  5,000  acres  between  the  Indian  Grave  District  and  the 
river  is  now  being  organized  into  the  Long  Island  Drainage  and  Levee 
District. 

South  of  Quincy,  5,590  acres  are  combined  in  the  South  Quincy  Levee 
and  Drainage  District  which  has  constructed  eight  and  one-half  miles  of 
levee  and  twelve  miles  of  ditches.  The  land  has  increased  in  value  from 
$25  an  acre  to  from  $100  to  $300  an  acre.  Except  for  about  1,000  acres 
which  cannot  be  cultivated,  the  district  is  operating  successfully. 

The  upland  areas  in  Adams  County  possess  sufficient  slope,  so  that  no 
artificial  drainage  is  required.  There  are  no  large  streams  and  consequently  no 
overflowed  areas  worth  considering.  The  largest  such  area  is  along  Bear 
Creek,  but  the  floods  are  of  short  duration  and  apparently  do  little  damage. 

The  largest  district  in  the  State  occupies  the  flood  plain  of  the  Mississippi 
throughout  Pike  County  and  extends  about  eight  miles  into  Calhoun  County 
on  the  south  and  about  three  miles  into  Adams  County  on  the  north.  This 
is  the  Sny  Island  District,  which  was  first  organized  in  1870,  but  at  that 
time  there  was  no  drainage  provision  in  the  Constitution  and  the  Supreme 
Court  held  that  its  organization  was  unconstitutional.    After  the  Constitution 


36  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

was  revised  in  1878  containing  a  drainage  provision,  and  the  Levee  Act  had 
been  passed  by  the  Legislature  in  1879,  the  Sny  Island  District  was  reorgan- 
ized in  1880,  containing  110,000  acres  within  its  boundaries. 

A  levee  was  constructed  from  the  bluffs  in  Adams  County  south  for  a 
distance  of  about  55  miles  to  the  west  bank  of  Hamburg  Bay,  which  is  the 
outlet  for  the  waters  of  the  district.  The  only  drainage  work  carried  out  by 
the  district  was  the  construction  of  a  main  drainage  artery  along  the  Sny. 
The  Federal  Government  assisted  in  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  the 
levee,  and  to  date  has  appropriated  $560,134  for  that  purpose,  all  of  which, 
however,  has  not  been  expended.  It  was  intended  to  construct  interior 
ditches,  levees,  etc.,  through  the  formation  of  sub-districts.  Twenty  such  dis- 
tricts, embracing  all  the  lands  of  the  parent  district,  were  proposed  by  the 
engineer. 

Three  of  these  areas  were  organized  as  independent  districts,  namely, 
Fall  Creek  District,  containing  about  3,000  acres  in  Adams  and  Pike  counties ; 
Boyd  District,  2,600  acres,  west  of  New  Canton ;  and  Six  Mile  Drainage 
District,  4,900  acres,  west  of  Pleasant  Hill.  Later  the  Boyd  Drainage  Dis- 
trict was  merged  with  the  Hadley  Creek  Sub-district. 

Of  the  twenty  proposed  sub-districts,  seven  have  been  organized  and 
five  have  completed  their  drainage  works.  These  are  the  Hadley,  Kiser, 
Sand-Slough,  Collins  Pond,  and  Bay  Creek  Drainage  Sub-Districts.  Also 
the  proposed  Cincinnatti  Sub-District  is  being  annexed  to  the  Collins  Pond 
District.    The  McCraney  Creek  Sub-District  is  about  75  per  cent  completed. 

Four  other  sub-districts  are  in  process  of  organization,  namely,  Pigeon 
Creek,  Cockle  Burr,  Atlas  Creek,  and  Tow-Head. 

The  creeks  which  enter  the  Sny  Island  District  from  the  bluffs  are  the 
boundary  lines  between  the  sub-districts,  and  levees  have  been  constructed 
to  prevent  overflow.  None  of  the  sub-districts  operate  pumping  plants 
at  present,  though  the  Collins  Pond,  Tow-Head,  and  Cockle  Burr  districts 
are  planning  to  install  such  plants  in  the  near  future. 

Since  the  Sny  Island  District's  levee  does  not  connect  with  the  bluffs 
at  the  southern  end,  the  district  is  subject  to  back-water  from  the  Mississippi, 
and  about  23  per  cent  of  the  area  is  thus  affected. 

Practically  all  the  lands  in  the  sub-districts  which  are  completed  can  be 
cultivated ;  but  of  the  lands  not  so  organized,  only  about  75  per  cent  is  under 
cultivation. 

The  uplands  in  Pike  County  require  no  artificial  drainage  other  than 
private  farm-tile  work.  The  soil  map  of  this  county  shows  a  small  amount 
of  bottom  land  soils  along  some  of  the  small  streams,  but  all  of  these  streams 
have  considerable  slope  and  hence  floods  are  infrequent  and  of  short  duration. 

The  west  half  of  Calhoun  County  drains  into  the  Mississippi.  This 
county  is  almost  entirely  a  ridge  lying  between  the  Mississippi  and  Illinois 
Rivers.  -  In  some  places  the  bluffs  are  abrupt  but  for  the  most  part  they  are 


MISSISSIPPI   RIVER   WATERSHED  37 

rounded  and  capable  of  cultivation.  From  the  southern  end  of  the  Sny  Island 
District  south  there  is  no  flood  plain  of  sufficient  extent  to  make  reclamation 
profitable. 

Near  the  southern  end  of  Calhoun  County,  the  ridge  gradually  flattens 
and  gives  place  to  a  swampy  flood  plain  at  the  mouth  of  Illinois  River. 
This  area  has  been  considered  in  this  report  as  within  the  Illinois  River 
watershed  and  is  treated  further  in  that  chapter. 

From  Grafton  to  Alton  the  bluffs  are  close  to  the  river  and  there  is  no 
overflowed  area.  Here  the  watershed  widens  out  and  extends  nearly  to 
Litchfield  in  Montgomery  County.  The  southeast  corner  of  Jersey  County 
drains  through  Piasa  Creek  into  the  Mississippi.  The  topography  consists 
of  rolling  to  broken  upland  areas  terminating  in  steep  bluffs  at  the  river. 
There  is  no  need  of  drainage,  except  along  Piasa  Creek  which  overflows  its 
bottom.  The  extent  of  this  overflow  is  small  and  is  not  shown  on  the  map. 
Whether  or  not  it  would  be  profitable  to  straighten  the  creek  is  a  matter  of 
further  engineering  study. 

Cahokia  Creek  is  the  largest  stream  in  this  portion  of  the  watershed. 
It  rises  west  of  Litchfield  and  flows  southwesterly  to  the  Mississippi.  The 
overflowed  area  along  this  stream  varies  from  one-fourth  to  three-fourths  of 
a  mile  in  width  and  contains  about  6,000  acres.  A  large  part  of  the  crops 
is  lost  nearly  every  year  along  the  creek.  This  is  a  feasible  drainage  project 
and  will  undoubtedly  be  organized  into  a  district  eventually. 

North  of  Edwardsville,  the  Cahokia  Creek  Drainage  and  Levee  District 
has  been  organized,  embracing  4,000  acres  along  Cahokia  Creek,  and  is 
giving  satisfactory  results. 

Between  Alton  and  Wood  River,  the  Wood  River  Drainage  and  Levee 
District  was  organized  in  1910  but  is  not  yet  completed.  There  are  4,390 
acres  in  this  district  which  is  constructing  seven  miles  of  levee  and  five  miles 
of  open  ditch.  This  area  was  overflowed  in  1915,  but  will  be  protected  when 
the  levees  are  completed.  The  commissioners  place  a  value  of  $800  an  acre 
upon  the  land,  due  to  its  proximity  to  Alton  and  its  availability  for  industrial 
purposes.  Adjoining  the  Wood  River  District  on  the  north,  an  area  of  900 
acres  along  the  east  fork  of  Wood  River  is  now  being  formed  into  the  East 
Wood  River  Drainage  and  Levee  District.  The  preliminary  surveys  have 
been  made  and  the  proposed  plans  provide  for  the  straightening  of  the 
channel  for  about  three  and  one-half  miles. 

Below  Alton  the  bluffs  along  the  Mississippi  recede  rapidly  and  leave 
a  plain  from  three  to  eight  miles  in  width.  This  area  is  known  as  the  Ameri- 
can Bottoms  and  is  largely  used  for  industrial  purposes.  In  the  southern 
part,  the  big  industrial  and  railway  activities  centering  around  East  St.  Louis 
dominate  the  land,  and  all  along  the  railroad  between  Alton  and  East  St. 
Louis,  industries  of  various  kinds  are  buying  up  large  areas  of  the  bottoms.  This 


38  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

increases  the  necessity  for  complete  flood  protection  and  sanitary  drainage 
over  that  required  for  purely  agricultural  lands. 

The  only  part  of  this  area  which  is  not  included  in  an  organized  district 
is  a  tract  of  about  4,000  acres  just  south  of  Wood  River. 

About  five  miles  west  of  Edwardsville,  a  small  mutual  district  of  600 
acres  has  been  constructed  along  Indian  Creek. 

The  second  largest  levee  district  in  the  State  embraces  the  bottom  lands 
around  East  St.  Louis.  This  is  the  East  Side  Levee  and  Sanitary  District 
which  was  organized  in  1907  for  the  protection  from  overflow  of  about 
65,860  acres  of  bottom  land.  The  district  has  a  length  of  about  17  miles 
along  the  river  and  extends  to  the  bluffs  on  the  east,  a  distance  of  about  six 
miles.  The  district  contains  the  cities  of  East  St.  Louis,  Venice,  Madison 
and  Granite  City,  and  includes  extensive  railway  and  manufacturing  inter- 
ests, although  about  90  per  cent  of  the  area  is  farm  land.  A  considerable 
part  of  the  land  is  practically  useless  at  present  due  to  inadequate  drainage. 

A  channel  has  been  constructed  above  the  north  end  of  the  district  to 
divert  the  water  of  Cahokia  Creek  from  the  district.  This  is  the  largest  of 
the  hill  streams  and  formerly  followed  a  winding  route  through  the  district 
to  East  St.  Louis  where  it  emptied  into  the  Mississippi.  The  diversion  chan- 
nel is  leveed,  and  another  levee  extends  along  the  river  to  the  lower  end  of 
the  district  and  thence  to  the  bluffs.  The  levee  on  the  south  along  the  Prairie 
Du  Pont  channel,  which  is  the  southern  outlet  ditch  of  the  district,  is  just 
being  completed.  The  district  has  to  take  care  of  the  drainage  from  about 
81  square  miles  of  the  hill  country  in  the  watershed  as  well  as  that  from  the 
district  itself.  The  commissioners  are  planning  to  improve  the  old  Cahokia 
Creek  Channel  through  the  center  of  the  district  and  to  install  a  pumping 
plant  of  1,000  sec.-ft.  capacity  at  the  lower  end;  also  the  improvement  of 
the  present  ditch  which  is  the  outlet  for  the  southern  half  of  the  district  and 
the  installation  of  a  pumping  plant  of  500  sec.-ft.  capacity  at  its  lower  end. 

In  1912,  the  County  Ditch  Drainage  and  Levee  District  was  organized 
at  the  northern  end  of  the  East  Side  Levee  and  Sanitary  District.  This  dis- 
trict contains  4,742  acres  of  which  2,342  acres  are  within  the  boundaries  of 
the  East  Side  Levee  District.  Eight  miles  of  levee  and  a  large  mileage  of 
open  ditches  have  been  constructed.  The  district  was  overflowed  in  1915, 
and  portions  suffer  annually  from  too  much  water.  About  100  acres  in  the 
district  are  not  useful.  The  value  of  the  land  ranges  from  $100  to  $150 
an  acre. 

The  Chouteau  Island  Drainage  and  Levee  District  was  organized  to 
reclaim  2,360  acres  on  Chouteau  Island.  A  levee  has  been  constructed  along 
the  river  and  the  district  is  operating  successfully. 

In  1888,  the  Chouteau,  Nameoki,  and  Venice  Drainage  and  Levee  Dis- 
trict was  organized  for  the  protection  of  17,500  acres  north  of  the  Toledo, 
St.  Louis  and  Western  Railway,  and  about  25  miles  of  levee  were  built  to 


MISSISSIPPI   RIVER   WATERSHED  39 

keep  out  the  flood  waters.  The  district  has  been  successful  and  is  free  from 
overflow  except  during  extreme  floods.  Later,  when  the  East  Side  Levee 
and  Sanitary  District  was  organized,  some  12,600  acres  of  the  district  were 
included  in  the  new  one,  and  its  levee  used  as  part  of  the  works  of  the  new 
district. 

West  of  Collinsville,  1,640  acres  were  organized  into  the  Canteen  Creek 
District.  This  area  is  adjacent  to  the  East  Side  Levee  and  Sanitary  District 
and  functions  essentially  as  a  sub-district  of  the  larger  organization. 

East  of  Dupo,  the  Falling  Springs  Drainage  District  is  located.  There 
are  only  920  acres  in  this  district,  which  was  organized  mainly  to  construct  a 
channel  for  diverting  the  water  of  Falling  Springs.  The  project  has  ac- 
complished it  purpose.  All  the  rest  of  the  Mississippi  bottoms  in  St.  Clair 
County  is  contained  in  the  Prairie  Du  Pont  Drainage  and  Levee  District. 
The  railroad  embankment  provides  a  levee  for  the  district  on  the  west  and  a 
spur  levee  to  the  bluffs  has  been  constructed  on  the  north.  While  there  is 
some  land  in  the  district  which  is  wet,  most  of  it  has  been  reclaimed  and  is 
raising  excellent  crops. 

All  of  the  bottom  land  in  St.  Clair  County  is  within  districts.  The  up- 
land prairie  is  rolling  and  intersected  by  numerous  small  streams  which  pro- 
vide natural  drainage. 

Throughout  Monroe  County  the  flood  plain  is  uniformly  about  three  and 
one-half  miles  in  width,  and  with  the  exception  of  a  2,500-acre  tract  west  of 
Columbia,  it  is  all  contained  in  levee  districts. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  Wilson  and  Wecker  Levee  District  which  was 
organized  in  1883  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  a  levee  along  the  river  to 
protect  the  1,600  acres  of  the  district  from  overflow.  Two  miles  of  levee  were 
built  but  there  are  no  ditches  and  consequently  the  land  is  frequently  flooded 
from  rainfall.  About  500  acres  cannot  be  used  for  farming.  The  district 
suffers  on  account  of  water  which  naturally  drains  south  from  the  Prairie 
Du  Pont  District  on  the  north. 

Immediately  south  of  the  above  district  is  the  tract  previously  mentioned 
as  being  outside  of  any  district. 

Next  comes  the  Columbia  Levee  and  Drainage  District  No.  3,  also  an  old 
district  formed  in  1880.  The  drainage  works  consist  of  twenty-two  miles  of 
levee  and  sixteen  miles  of  ditches.  The  district  was  overflowed  in  1881,  1882, 
1883,  1892,  1903,  1908  and  1915.  There  are  13,500  acres  in  this  area  of 
which  about  500  acres  are  not  useful.  The  outlet  is  through  four  large  tile 
drains  in  the  levee  into  Fountain  Creek.  The  land  is  valued  at  about  $100 
an  acre.  The  unreclaimed  area  to  the  north  might  be  annexed  advantageously 
to  this  district. 

From  Fountain  Creek  to  Ivy  Landing  the  bottom  land  is  protected  by  the 
20-mile  levee  of  the  Harrisonville  and  Ivy  Landing  Drainage  and  Levee 
District  No.  2,  which  was  organized  in  1882.     Approximately  26,700  acres 


40  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

of  land  are  protected  by  this  levee,  of  which  16,700  acres  were  organized  into 
the  Moredock  and  Ivy  Landing  Drainage  District  No.  1  in  1908.  This  area 
has  been  overflowed  several  times  since  the  levee  was  built,  the  last  over- 
flow occuring  in  1903.  District  No  2  has  constructed  ten  to  fifteen  miles  of 
ditches  which  have  their  outlet  in  the  main  ditch  of  District  No.  1.  The  lat- 
ter district  has  -twenty  miles  of  ditches  with  a  lock  at  the  lower  end  of  the 
main  ditch.  The  slopes  are  flat  and  as  it  is  necessary  to  close  the  lock  at  high 
river  stages  and  permit  the  water  to  collect  behind  the  lock  till  the  river 
recedes,  it  frequently  happens  that  crops  are  damaged  and  sometimes  lost. 
This  is  especially  true  in  District  No.  1.  The  commissioners  would  like  to 
install  a  pumping  plant,  but  the  sentiment  among  the  land  owners  seems  to 
be  opposed  to  this  much  needed  improvement.  The  land  is  very  fertile  and 
should  be  thoroughly  protected  against  flooding. 

South  of  Ivy  Landing,  the  bottoms  are  protected  by  the  levee  of  the 
Fort  Chartres  and  Ivy  Landing  Levee  and  Drainage  District  No.  5  and  the 
Stringtown  and  Fort  Chartres  Levee  District  No.  4.  The  former  contains 
10,500  acres  and  the  latter  3,200  acres  and  both  extend  into  Randolph  county 
on  the  south.  Neither  district  has  a  pumping  plant,  and  the  condition  of 
the  land  is  about  the  same  as  that  in  the  districts  to  the  north. 

It  will  be  noticed  on  the  map  that  the  levees  of  most  of  the  districts  in 
Monroe  County  are  from  one-half  to  one  mile  from  the  river  bank.  This 
strip  along  the  river  is  so  cut  up  by  by-channels  that  its  reclamation  would 
be  very  difficult  and  probably  prohibitive. 

Very  little  reclamation  work  has  been  done  in  Randolph  County,  and 
the  flood  plain  as  far  south  as  the  mouth  of  Kaskaskia  River  presents  fea- 
sible drainage  projects.  The  bottoms  are  about  three  miles  in  width  and 
contain  approximately  13,000  acres.  The  owners  of  this  land  are  waiting 
in  hopes  of  receiving  aid  from  the  Federal  Government. 

The  Marias  Giteau  Drainage  and  Levee  District,  containing  525  acres, 
was  organized  principally  for  the  protection  of  the  town  of  Prairie  Du  Rocher 
and  has  successfully  accomplished  its  purpose. 

West  of  Roots,  between  the  Missouri  Pacific  Railroad  embankment  and 
the  bluffs,  2,000  acres  were  organized  in  1917  into  the  Edgar  Lakes  Levee 
and  Drainage  District.  The  plans  call  for  the  construction  of  half  a  mile  of 
levee  and  between  four  and  five  miles  of  ditches.  The  levee  at  the  north  end 
of  the  district,  which  protects  the  district  from  overflow,  has  been  completed, 
and  the  ditches  are  partly  completed.  The  original  assessment  was  insuf- 
ficient to  meet  the  cost  of  construction,  and  the  work  is  being  held  up  until 
a  second  assessment  can  be  made.  The  outlet  of  the  district  is  in  Kaskaskia 
River,  but  since  the  land  is  in  the  Mississippi  bottoms,  it  has  been  included 
in  that  watershed. 

Between  Chester  and   Fort  Gage,  a   strip  of  bottom  land  about  one- 


MISSISSIPPI  RIVER   WATERSHED  41 

fourth  of  a  mile  in  width  is  being  reclaimed  by  convict  labor  from  the  State 
Penitentiary  at  Chester. 

Across  the  river  from  Chester,  the  Kaskaskia  Island  Drainage  and  Levee 
District  was  organized  in  1916  and  completed  in  1918.  About  10,000  acres 
are  included  within  the  district,  surrounded  by  a  levee.  Outside  the  district 
there  are  about  2,500  acres  which  should  be  included.  The  commissioners 
have  constructed  ten  miles  of  levee,  one  mile  of  open  ditch,  and  one  mile  of 
large  tile  drain.  Since  there  is  no  pumping  plant  the  district  suffers  from 
rainfall.  Before  the  levees  were  constructed  the  Island  was  subject  to 
frequent  overflow  and  its  land  was  valued  at  about  $80  an  acre.  At  present 
the  value  ranges  from  $100  to  $160  an  acre. 

South  of  Chester,  Marys  River  enters  the  Mississippi.  The  bottom 
land  along  this  stream  is  considerably  damaged  from  overflow,  about  three 
out  of  five  crops  being  lost.  The  width  subject  to  overflow  is  about  one-half 
to  three-quarters  of  a  mile.  The  river  is  quite  crooked,  and  the  improve- 
ment here  should  consist  of  channel  straightening.  While  some  of  the  land 
owners  are  in  favor  of  organizing  a  district  for  this  purpose,  general  senti- 
ment is  not  very  favorable,  and  it  will  probably  be  some  time  before  this 
area  is  reclaimed. 

In  Jackson  County,  the  Mississippi  bottoms  widen  out  to  a  maximum 
of  six  miles  as  far  south  as  Fountain  Bluff.  All  of  this  area  is  protected 
against  overflow  of  the  Mississippi  by  the  levee  of  the  Degonia  and  Foun- 
tain Bluff  Levee  and  Drainage  District,  which  contains  29,260  acres.  Within 
this  levee  district  there  are  two  small  drainage  districts  previously  organized, 
namely  the  Jones  Pond  Mutual  and  the  Boones  Pond.  The  former  district, 
consisting  of  2,060  acres,  was  formed  in  1900,  and  its  drainage  work  com- 
prises one  mile  of  ditch,  which  provides  satisfactory  drainage.  The  latter 
district,  embracing  1200  acres,  was  organized  in  1914.  It  has  not  been  suc- 
cessful since  it  is  flooded  yearly. 

A  fourth  district,  the  Big  Lake  Special,  occupies  part  of  the  bottoms. 
There  are  16,050  acres  in  this  district,  60  percent  of  which  is  in  the  Degonia 
and  Fountain  Bluff  District.  The  Big  Lake  Special  extends  eastward  to  the 
Big  Muddy  River  bottoms,  and  is  protected  against  overflow  from  this  direc- 
tion by  a  levee.  Some  difficulty  was  encountered  in  incorporating  the  three 
drainage  districts  into  the  levee  district  but  since  they  all  needed  the  pro- 
tection of  levees  along  the  Mississippi,  all  objections  were  overcome.  The 
Degonia  and  Fountain  Bluff  District  did  not  install  a  pumping  plant  and  as 
a  result  the  lands  are  seriously  damaged  by  the  hill  waters  which  collect  be- 
hind the  levee  when  the  sluice  gates  are  closed.  The  extreme  fertility  of  the 
land  warrants  the  removal  of  rainwater  either  through  pumping  or  diversion 
channels.  The  commissioners  of  the  levee  district  have  had  surveys  made 
and  plans  are  being  prepared  for  a  diversion  channel  around  the  district.  If 
this  improvement  is  constructed,  the  lands  will  be  greatly  benefited.   However, 


42  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

it  would  seem  that  a  pumping  plant  for  removing  the  rain  and  seepage  water 
from  the  district  would  be  profitable.  The  average  cost  of  the  levee  district 
has  been  about  $20  an  acre. 

The  Grand  Tower  Drainage  and  Levee  District  is  situated  in  the  south- 
ern part  of  Jackson  County,  between  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  and  Big 
Muddy  River,  and  has  successfully  reclaimed  2620  acres  of  rich  bottom 
land.  The  railroad  embankment  acts  as  a  levee  on  the  west,  and  a  levee  has 
been  constructed  along  the  Big  Muddy  on  the  east.  The  average  cost  of  the 
district  has  been  $11  per  acre. 

The  Preston  Levee  and  Drainage  District  contains  16,200  acres  at  the 
northern  end  of  Union  county.  It  has  17  miles  of  levee  along  the  river  which 
joins  the  levee  of  the  district  to  the  south.  The  main  ditch  is  16  miles  long 
and  has  its  outlet  in  the  Clear  Creek  ditch.  As  a  result  of  protection  and 
drainage,  land  values  have  risen  from  $30  an  acre  in  1913  to  $90  an 
acre  at  the  present  time  and  the  majority  of  the  land  owners  are  much 
pleased  with  the  results  of  the  undertaking. 

The  Miller  Pond  Drainage  and  Levee  District  occupies  the  bottoms  east 
of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  between  Wolf  Lake  and  Ware.  The  petition 
was  filed  in  1913,  but  the  objectors  succeeded  in  delaying  the  organization 
two  years.  Seven  miles  of  levee  protect  the  land  from  overflow  and  22 
miles  of  ditches  remove  the  rain-water  from  the  4300  acres  within  the 
district.  The  outlet  is  through  the  main  ditch  of  the  Clear  Creek  district  on 
the  south,  which  has  Miller  Creek  for  its  outlet,  which  in  turn  empties  into 
the  Mississippi.  During  floods,  the  Miller  Pond  District  is  injured  some- 
what from  backwater. 

The  Clear  Creek  Drainage  and  Levee  District  includes  the  remainder 
of  the  Mississippi  bottom  lands  in  Union  County.  It  was  organized  in  1913, 
embracing  19,130  acres,  and  completed  its  construction  work  in  1919.  Nine 
and  one-half  miles  of  levee  and  ten  miles  of  ditch  constitute  the  work  done 
thus  far.  Both  of  the  districts  lying  to  the  north  drain  through  the  Clear 
Creek  District,  and  the  large  volume  of  water  causes  some  damage  in  the 
lower  district.  There  is  much  dissatisfaction  among  the  land  owners  af- 
fected, and  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  hill  water  which  comes  down 
through  Clear  Creek  be  diverted  into  the  Mississippi  by  a  cut-off  channel 
in  the  vicinity  of  Ware.  The  commissioners  feel  that  a  pumping  plant  of 
sufficient  capacity  to  handle  such  a  large  volume  of  water  is  prohibitive  in 
cost. 

The  East  Cape  Girardeau  and  Clear  Creek  Drainage  and  Levee  District 
is  situated  in  the  northwestern  corner  of  Alexander  County  to  the  west  of 
the  Illinois  Central  Railroad.  It  was  organized  in  1908  and  includes  9370 
acres  of  very  fertile  bottom  land.  The  district  is  exposed  to  the  river  on 
three  sides,  and  about  fifteen  miles  of  levee  were  necessary  to  protect  the 
area.     The  Federal  Government  assisted  in  the  levee  construction.     The  dis- 


MISSISSIPPI   RIVER   WATERSHED  43 

trict  is  satisfactorily  protected  from  overflow  from  the  river,  but  during  flood 
stages  when  the  sluice  gates  are  closed,  the  storm  water  precipitated  within 
the  levees  causes  considerable  trouble.  Twelve  miles  of  ditches  furnish 
outlets  for  the  tile  drains.  About  10  percent  of  the  area  cannot  be  cultivated. 
A  pumping  plant  is  very  much  needed  in  this  district,  and  the  cost  of  such 
a  plant  would  not  be  excessive  since  there  are  no  hill  waters  entering  the 
district.     The  present  value  of  the  land  varies  from  $100  to  $200  an  acre. 

The  North  Alexander  Drainage  and  Levee  District  was  organized  in  1910 
to  reclaim  the  4400  acres  of  land  between  the  East  Cape  Girardeau  District 
and  the  bluffs.  Five  miles  of  levee  and  seven  and  one-half  miles  of  ditches 
have  been  constructed,  the  last  work  being  completed  in  1918.  The  district  is 
having  much  trouble  on  account  of  the  overflow  of  the  main  ditch  which  is  the 
outlet  for  all  the  districts  in  Union  County.  When  the  river  is  at  flood  stage, 
the  ditch  overflows  its  banks  and  causes  considerable  damage.  A  plan  has 
been  considered  which  provides  for  a  diversion  ditch  at  the  north  end  of  the 
district.  Some  thought  has  been  given  to  the  feasibility  of  pumping.  While 
definite  plans  have  not  been  approved,  yet  the  sentiment  among  the  land 
owners  is  such  that  without  doubt  some  measure  will  be  taken  to  improve 
the  present  condition. 

In  the  southern  tip  of  Alexander  County,  made  by  the  big  bend  of  the 
Mississippi,  there  are  16,000  acres  of  excellent  land  that  are  frequently 
overflowed,  and  which  present  a  possible  levee  project.  To  protect  this  area 
a  levee  would  have  to  be  built  on  three  sides,  and  a  pumping  plant  should 
be  installed.  The  size  of  the  area  and  the  fertility  of  the  land  warrants  the 
necessary  expense. 

Throughout  the  Mississippi  watershed,  the  main  object  of  the  districts 
which  have  been  formed  has  been  to  protect  the  land  from  overflow  by  the 
construction  of  levees.  Only  in  a  few  cases  has  any  provision  been  made 
for  removing  the  water,  which  collects  behind  the  levees  during  flood  periods. 
Some  districts  are  planning  diversion  ditches  for  the  hill  water,  but  only 
five  of  the  fifty-one  districts  operate  pumping  plants.  This  is  quite  a  contrast 
with  the  practice  w-hich  has  been  followed  along  the  Illinois  River.  Prac- 
tically every  levee  district  along  the  latter  stream  has  a  pumping  plant  as 
part  of  its  works,  and  considers  such  a  plant  an  absolute  necessity.  Possibly 
it  is  because  of  the  better  drainage  in  the  Illinois  River  districts  that  makes 
this  land  from  $100  to  $150  an  acre  more  valuable  than  the  Mississippi 
bottom  land.  For  that  matter,  the  land  in  the  pumping  districts  along  the 
Mississippi  is  selling  at  the  same  prices  as  the  Illinois  River  land.  The  cost 
of  installing  pumping  plants  in  the  districts  which  are  without  them  would 
be  much  less  than  the  increase  in  the  value  of  the  land  which  would  follow 
as  the  result  of  more  thorough  drainage. 

To  recapitulate:  (1)  51  districts  with  a  combined  area  of  500,300  acres 
have  been  organized  within  the  Mississippi  watershed;    (2)    four  districts 


44  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

with  a  total  area  of  12,900  acres  are  in  process  of  organization;  (3)  approx- 
imately 105,700  acres  are  still  subject  to  overflow  ;  and  (4)  at  least  2600  acres 
of  wet  upland  are  in  need  of  better  drainage.  It  is  estimated  that  about  36,000 
acres  in  organized  districts  may  still  be  classed  as  unreclaimed  land.  This 
added  to  the  overflowed  and  wet  upland  areas  gives  the  amount  which  re- 
mains to  be  reclaimed,  and  represents  23  per  cent  of  the  originally  wet  and 
overflowed  land  in  the  watershed. 


CHAPTER  III— PECATONICA  RIVER  WATERSHED      - 

The  Pecatonica  watershed  lies  in  both  Wisconsin  and  Illinois  and  con- 
tains 2610  square  miles,  of  which  770  are  in  Illinois.  It  embraces  nearly  all 
of  Stephenson  County,  a  small  portion  of  Jo  Daviess,  and  the  northwest 
corner  of  Winnebago. 

The  topography  of  the  watershed  is  rolling  except  for  the  flood  plains 
along  the  river.  The  uplands  rise  as  much  as  150  feet  above  the  river  valley. 

Pecatonica  River  has  a  total  length  of  158  miles  and  a  fall  of  about 
500  feet.  The  portion  of  the  river  in  Illinois  is  92  miles  in  length  with  a  fall 
of  only  about  55  feet.  The  channel  averages  about  150  feet  in  width  and 
is  very  crooked,  doubling  back  on  itself  frequently  and  forming  oxbows.  The 
flood-plain  has  an  average  width  of  a  mile  or  more. 

No  drainage  districts  have  been  or  are  being  organized  in  this  water- 
shed. The  uplands  have  good  natural  drainage  and  the  small  areas  here  and 
there  which  might  be  improved  by  tiling  can  be  taken  care  of  by  individual 
owners. 

The  drainage  problem  is  confined  to  the  Pecatonica  bottoms.  The  tribu- 
tary streams  flow  through  valleys  which  narrow  to  almost  the  banks  of  the 
streams  as  soon  as  the  main  stream  is  left.  The  hill  sides  are  so  steep  that 
the  run-off  is  large  and  the  small  streams  are  subject  to  sudden  floods  of 
short  duration.  These  hillsides  are  in  grass  to  prevent  the  erosion  which 
would  take  place  if  they  were  cultivated,  and  furnish  excellent  pasturage. 

Approximately  32,000  acres  in  the  Pecatonica  bottoms  are  subject  to 
overflow.  A  few  crops  are  grown  on  the  higher  parts,  but  seldom  is  a  good 
crop  harvested.  If  a  spring  flood  does  not  prevent  planting,  a  summer  or  fall 
flood  will  usually  destroy  the  growing  crop. 

The  small  natural  fall  in  the  Pecatonica  has  been  decreased  by  the  con- 
struction of  three  dams  across  the  stream.  At  Freeport,  the  Railway  and 
Light  Company  uses  Goddard's  Dam  for  developing  power  for  lighting  and 
traction  purposes.  Likewise  the  Pecatonica  River  Power  Company  uses 
Brown's  Dam,  which  is  located  about  10  miles  below  Freeport,  for  the  same 
purpose.  These  dams  are  about  four  feet  above  medium  low  water.  At 
Pecatonica  a  dam,  about  4.5  feet  in  height,  was  formerly  used  to  operate  a 
grist  mill,  but  is  now  serving  no  useful  function. 

The  surface  soil,  0  to  6  2/3  inches,  of  the  bottom  land  is  a  brown  mixed 
loam,  varying  from  a  silt  to  a  sandy  loam,  and  contains  an  average  of  6.3 
percent  of  organic  matter.  It  is  fairly  rich  in  all  important  plant-food  ele- 
ments. The  subsurface  soil  extends  to  a  depth  of  from  16  to  24  inches  and  is 
also  a  brown  silt  loam.  This  soil  is  more  variable  than  the  surface  soil  and 
averages  about  3%  of  organic  matter.1    Thus  it  is  seen  that  from  the  stand- 


iTJniversity  of  Illinois  Ag.  Exp.  Station  Soil  Report  No.  12.  Winnebago  County. 


46  LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

point  of  fertility  this  bottom  land  is  excellent  agricultural  land,  and,  if  it 
were  only  protected  from  overflow,  would  add  considerably  to  the  wealth  of 
this  section  of  the  State. 

In  1914,  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  made  a  topographic  survey 
of  the  river  bottoms  from  a  point  14.5  miles  above  Freeport  to  Brown's  Dam, 
11.6  miles  below  Freeport,  with  the  special  object  in  view  of  finding  out  to 
what  extent  the  dams  in  the  stream  were  contributing  to  the  overflow  con- 
ditions. Later  a  further  reconnaissance  was  made  by  this  commission  to  as- 
sist in  making  flood  prevention  plans  for  the  city  of  Freeport.  While  this 
was  being  done,  the  most  severe  flood  in  the  history  of  the  valley  occurred 
in  March  1916,  which  caused  an  estimated  damage  of  $100,000  at  Freeport. 

In  1915,  the  State  Geological  Survey  in  cooperation  with  the  U.  S. 
Geological  Survey  surveyed  the  Pecatonica  River  Valley,  and  topographic 
maps  were  made  with  a  five-foot  contour  interval,  so  as  to  be  available  for 
drainage  reclamation  studies. 

The  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  published  the  results  of  its  investiga- 
tion and  study  as  Bulletin  No.  18,  dated  December  1,  1916.  Two  of  the  con- 
clusions given  in  this  report  are  as  follows : 

"4.  That  the  river,  in  its  natural  state,  spreads  out  over  the  whole  valley  during 
flood  periods  and  the  tendency  is  toward  a  general  increase  of  flood  height  and  property 
damage  due  to  the  silting  up  of  the  channel  and  the  encroachment  of  civilization. 

"5.  That  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  a  general  project  designed  to  prevent 
the  inundation  of  the  valley  as  a  whole  would  not,  at  the  present  time,  be  commensu- 
rate with  the  cost  of  such  work,  but  the  annual  damage  sustained  at  Freeport  and 
vicinity  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the  outlay  necessary  to  protect  that  city  against  a  flood 
flow  of  21,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  nearly  25  per  cent  greater  than  that  of 
March  28,  1916." 

Plans  for  the  protection  of  Freeport  were  given  in  this  report,  but  so 
far  they  have  not  been  acted  upon.  While,  as  this  report  states,  it  may  not  be 
a  paying  investment  to  reclaim  the  "valley  as  a  whole,"  due  to  the  narrowing 
of  the  valley  in  places,  yet  the  larger  part  of  this  land  can  be  economically 
protected  from  overflow.  The  latest  practice  in  channel  correction  design  is 
to  leave  the  old  crooked  channel  and  to  construct  an  entirely  new  channel. 
Where  the  valley  is  several  miles  wide,  this  may  be  the  most  economical 
design ;  but  where  the  valley  is  comparatively  narrow,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Pecatonica,  most  of  the  old  channel  would  have  to  be  utilized.  However,  nu- 
merous cut-offs  are  possible.  Below  Freeport  the  length  of  the  present 
channel  is  about  62  miles.  By  constructing  about  nine  miles  of  new  chan- 
nel, this  distance  can  be  reduced  to  about  37  miles.  Fortunately  most  of 
the  new  channel  can  be  located  near  the  bluffs,  so  as  to  throw  all  the  re- 
claimed area  on  the  same  side  of  the  stream  and  to  make  the  construction  of 
only  one  levee  necessary.  The  excavated  material  can  be  used  for  this  pur- 
pose.  The  cost  of  this  channel  improvement  should  be  assessed  against  all  the 


PECATONICA   RIVER   WATERSHED  47 

lands  in  the  valley  which  will  be  benefited  by  the  improved  outlet.  In  places 
levees  would  have  to  be  constructed  on  both  sides  of  the  stream,  and  where 
the  valley  is  narrow,  this  might  make  the  cost  prohibitive. 

The  most  difficult  part  of  the  project  to  carry  into  effect  would  be  the 
channel  correction,  due  to  the  large  number  of  owners  concerned  and  to 
the  difficulty  in  making  an  equitable  division  of  the  cost.  Once  this  part  is 
done,  the  organization  of  separate  districts  for  further  local  improvement 
should  be  easily  accomplished. 

It  is  true  that  the  reclamation  of  this  land  will  be  more  expensive  per 
acre  than  that  in  most  of  the  river  valleys  of  the  State ;  however,  it  should 
not  be  considered  impracticable  till  a  more  detailed  study  of  the  situation  is 
made,  taking  into  consideration  the  increasing  value  of  farming  lands,  and 
the  demand  for  greater  food  production. 


CHAPTER  IV— ROCK  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  total  area  drained  by  Rock  river  is  about  11,000  square  miles,  of 
which  5210  miles  are  in  Illinois.  The  main  tributaries  are  the  Pecatonica,  the 
Kishwaukee,  and  the  Green  which  are  treated  as  independent  watersheds  in 
this  report.  The  watershed  of  Rock  River  as  indicated  on  the  accompanying 
map  contains  770  square  miles  and  covers  part  of  Boone,  Winnebago,  Ogle, 
Carroll,  Lee,  Whiteside,  Henry,  and  Rock  Island  counties.  The  drainage 
data  for  this  watershed  are  given  in  Table  5. 

Table  5. — Drainage  data  for  the  Rock  River  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organized  drainage  districts 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 


Hunter 

Rockf ord  and  Winnebago  Special 

Ky te  River 

.Brush  Grove 

Harmon  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Harmon  and  Montmorency 

Union  No.  1,  Harmon  and  Marion 

Union  No.  1,  Tampico  and  Hahnemann 

Montmorency  Special 

Union  No.  1,  Prophetstown  and  Hume 

Union  Special  of  Tampico,  Prophetstown,  Hume, 

Enterprise 

Union  No.  1,  Erie  and  Fenton 

Whiteside  and  Rock  Island  Special 

Rock  River  D.  and  L.a 

Phoenix  No.  1  (Farmers) 

Union  No.  1,  Zuma  and  Hampton 

Hampton  No.  2 

Hampton  No.  3 


Total 


Acres 

Boone 

720 

Winnebago 

2,160 

Ogle 

4,500 

Ogle-Lee 

11,000 

Lee 

7,240 

Lee-Whiteside 

3,400 

Lee 

7,200 

Whiteside 

6,200 

Whiteside 

6,240 

Whiteside 

3,840 

Whiteside-Lee 

45,000 

Whiteside 

2820 

Whiteside 

11,060 

Whiteside 

20,000 

Henry -Whiteside 

3,000 

Henry 

3,360 

Rock  Island 

3,000 

Rock  Island 

2,700 

Rock  Island 

1,600 

145,040 


Districts  being  organised 


20 


Black  Hawk  No.  1 


1,400 


aNo  work  done. 


ROCK  RIVER   WATERSHED 


49 


Table  5. — Drainage  data  for  the  Rock  River  zuatershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

Overflowed  areas 

21 

Overflow  along  Rock  River  above  Dixon 

Lee-Ogle 

Lee 

Whiteside-Rock  Island 

Rock  Island 

Acres 
12,300 

22 

Overflow   along   Rock   River   between   Dixon   and 
Sterling 

6,000 

23 
24 

Overflow  along  Rock  River  below  Sterling 

Overflow  along  Rock  River  south  of  Rock  Island  .  . 
Total 

45,500 
10,500 
74,300 

Upland  areas  needing  drainage 

25 

South  of  Dixon 

24,000 

Rock  River  is  286  miles  in  length,  about  157  of  which  is  in  Illinois.  Of 
the  length  in  Illinois  96.5  miles  is  above  Sterling.  In  the  108.5  miles  from 
Janesville,  Wisconsin,  to  Sterling  the  fall  is  134  feet — over  1.25  feet  per 
mile — and  is  fairly  well  distributed.  Six  power  dams  have  been  constructed 
across  the  river,  two  in  Wisconsin  and  four  in  Illinois.  Those  in  Illinois  are 
at  Rockford,  Oregon,  Dixon,  and  Sterling.  The  first  three  were  constructed 
and  are  operated  by  private  power  companies,  while  the  one  at  Sterling  was 
built  by  the  Government  at  the  head  of  the  feeder  for  the  Illinois-Mississippi 
Canal. 

Rock  River  is  an  interstate  navigable  stream  and  an  investigation  was 
made  by  the  Federal  Government  in  1914  to  determine  the  feasibility  of  con- 
structing the  necessary  locks  at  the  several  dams,  and  of  dredging  the  stream 
in  places  to  make  a  7-foot  navigable  channel.  The  decision  reached  was  that 
the  commerce  which  might  be  expected  as  a  result  of  the  proposed  improve- 
ment would  not  warrant  the  cost  of  construction. 

The  area  of  this  watershed  in  Boone  and  Winnebago  counties  is  mostly 
high  ground  and  has  good  natural  drainage,  though  small  level  areas  here  and 
there  would  be  improved  by  artificial  drainage.  Such  areas  can  be  taken  care 
of  through  individual  effort.  There  is  one  small  district  of  720  acres  in  Boone 
County,  known  as  the  Hunter  Drainage  District.  The  Rockford  and  Winne- 
bago Drainage  District,  2160  acres,  is  located  about  four  miles  west  of  Rock- 
ford and  is  entirely  in  Winnebago  County.  This  district  was  organized  in 
1916  with  the  greatest  difficulty,  due  mainly  to  the  uncertainty  on  the  part 
of  most  of  the  land  owners  as  to  the  benefits  of  drainage.  However,  after 
a  long  court  fight,  the  district  was  finally  organized  and  construction  work  was 
in  progress  at  the  time  when  this  county  was  being  studied. 


50  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

Through  Boone  and  Winnebago  counties  the  valley  of  Rock  River  is 
from  one  to  four  miles  wide,  but  the  river  has  cut  a  deep  channel  and  there 
is  no  overflow. 

The  land  in  Ogle  and  Carroll  counties  west  of  Rock  River  is  rough  and 
rolling  and  has  good  drainage.  Just  east  of  the  river  the  ground  is  slightly 
rolling,  but  it  soon  becomes  flat  and  the  drainage  is  poor.  The  soil  type  is 
a  silt  loam.  Northeast  of  Rochelle  the  Kyte  River  Drainage  District  in- 
cluding 4500  acres  has  been  organized.  Although  organized  in  1914,  this 
district  was  not  quite  completed  when  Ogle  County  was  visited.  It  has  six 
miles  of  open  ditches  and  four  miles  of  large  tile,  and  has  its  outlet  in  Kyte 
River.  The  value  of  the  land  has  increased  from  $200  an  acre  to  $300  as 
a  result  of  drainage.  Drainage  sentiment  is  now  favorable  in  the  com- 
munity. 

The  Brush  Grove  Drainage  District,  including  11,000  acres,  joins  the 
above  district  on  the  southwest  and  is  partly  in  Ogle  and  partly  in  Lee 
County.  It  was  organized  in  1893  and  completed  in  1895.  Originally  15 
miles  of  open  ditches  were  used  which  eventually  became  filled  with  silt. 
The  ditches  have  recently  been  cleaned  out  and  large  tile  have  been  substi- 
tuted for  some  of  them.  This  district  is  overflowed  nearly  every  year,  but 
the  project  is  considered  a  success  and  the  present  market  value  of  the  land 
is  $300  an  acre.  The  commissioners  state  that  some  adjoining  land  should 
be  taken  into  the  district. 

Only  a  few  farms  in  Ogle  County  east  of  the  river  do  not  need  a  small 
amount  of  drainage,  and  possibly  other  districts  will  be  formed  in  this  area 
as  the  drainage  sentiment  is  good. 

In  the  southern  part  of  Ogle  County  and  extending  into  Lee  County  to 
Dixon,  approximately  12,200  acres  of  overflow  land  lie  along  the  Rock  River. 
Between  Dixon  and  Sterling  there  are  approximately  6,000  acres  of  such 
lands. 

Lee  County  has  always  been  poorly  drained.  An  old  record  at  Spring- 
field, dated  1857,  states  that  there  were  at  that  time  70,000  acres  in  Lee 
County  which  were  unfit  for  cultivation,  and  there  are  still  large  areas  of 
such  lands,  most  of  which  are  in  the  Green  River  watershed.  Between 
Dixon  and  Amboy  there  is  a  large  area  of  wet  land,  indicated  on  the  map  in 
green,  which  comprises  24,000  acres,  though  the  boundaries  are  only  approxi- 
mate. 

Several  districts  have  been  organized  in  the  west  central  portion  of  Lee 
County,  namely :  Harmon  No.  1,  724  acres  ;  Union  No.  1,  Harmon  and  Mont- 
morency, 3,400  acres;  Union  No.  1,  Harmon  and  Marion,  7,200  acres.  These 
are  old  districts  and  the  boundaries  as  shown  on  map  may  be  somewhat  in 
error,  since  satisfactory  information  concerning  them  was  not  obtainable. 
They  were  all  organized  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  It  is  believed  that 
the  area  in  these  districts  is  not  fully  reclaimed. 


ROCK  RIVER  WATERSHED  51 

In  Whiteside  County  below  Sterling,  the  character  of  the  valley  changes. 
The  slope  of  Rock  River  is  much  less  than  it  is  above  Sterling  and  the 
channel  meanders  back  and  forth  across  the  flood  plain  which  is  as  much 
as  three  miles  wide  in  places.  This  change  is  due  to  the  fact  that  at  some 
period  in  geologic  history  a  larger  stream  than  Rock  River  flowed  through  this 
valley.  It  is  believed  that  the  pre-glacial  Mississippi  flowed  through  the 
Meredosia  Valley  above  Cordova,  through  the  Rock  River  valley  at  Erie  and 
then  southeasterly  to  the  Hennepin  Bend  in  Illinois  River.  Also  some  pre- 
glacial  stream  may  have  flowed  through  Pleasant  Valley  and  eastward  up  the 
present  Rock  River. 

The  flood  plain  below  Sterling  is  overflowed  every  year  in  the  early 
spring  and  about  every  other  year  in  May  or  June.  The  map  shows  36,000 
acres  of  such  lands  which  are  not  in  drainage  districts.  A  considerable  area 
of  certain  districts  also  suffers  from  overflow. 

The  southeastern  corner  of  Whiteside  County  is  nearly  all  in  drainage 
districts.  Union  No.  1,  of  Tampico  and  Hahneman,  6,200  acres,  Mont- 
morency Special,  6,240  acres;  Union  No.  1  of  Prophetstown  and  Hume, 
3,840  acres,  and  Union  Special  of  Tampico,  Prophetstown,  and  Hume,  45,000 
acres,  are  all  in  this  part  of  the  county.  The  last  named  district  was  organ- 
ized in  1882  after  long  and  bitter  court  proceedings.  It  has  been  added  to 
from  time  to  time  until  now  it  contains  45,000  acres  and  extends  into  Mont- 
morency and  Hahneman  townships.  This  area  was  originally  all  swamp 
land  and  the  widely  scattered  farm  houses  could  be  reached  in  the  spring 
of  the  year  only  by  boats.  Drainage  has  changed  this  condition,  so  that  now 
the  area  is  fine  farming  land,  valued  at  $300.00  an  acre. 

Union  district  No.  1  of  Hume  and  Prophetstown  is  just  north  of  the 
last  mentioned  district  and  uses  Walker  Creek  as  an  outlet.  It  should  be 
enlarged  by  the  addition  of  certain  adjoining  areas.  This  district  should 
have  taken  in  more  territory  down  stream  to  the  west.  Just  below  the  dis- 
trict there  is  a  gravel  ford  which  the  commissioners  have  been  trying  to  get 
lowered  two  feet  but  the  owners  have  objected  and  the  issue  has  not  been 
forced.  Some  1,000  acres  would  be  much  benefited  by  this  improvement. 
The  commissioners  have  given  the  average  value  of  the  land  in  the  district 
as  $100.00  an  acre. 

Just  west  of  the  big  Union  Special  district  is  Big  Slough  Special  of 
which  about  3,000  acres  are  in  the  Rock  River  watershed  and  15,000  acres 
in  the  Green  River  watershed.  Since  the  greater  part  of  this  district  is  in  the 
latter  watershed,  it  is  listed  in  the  table  under  Green  River. 

The  Enterprise  district,  2,820  acres,  is  in  the  lower  end  of  "Cattail  Val- 
ley," the  upper  end  being  in  the  Mississippi  watershed.  Cattail  Valley,  al- 
though a  mile  in  width,  is  now  occupied  by  only  a  small  creek.  It  was  evi- 
dently cut  by  a  large  pre-glacial  stream,  possibly  the  Mississippi.  The  vallev 
was  swampy  and  much  of  it  covered  with  water  till  it  was  reclaimed.     The 


52  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

valley  floor  is  lower  than  the  second  bottoms  along  the  Mississippi.  In  ex- 
treme floods  the  district  is  flooded,  but  these  occur  usually  in  the  winter  or 
spring.  The  land  has  increased  in  value  from  $25  an  acre  to  $200,  and 
the  project  is  considered  a  success. 

Joining  the  Enterprise  on  the  south  is  Union  district  No.  1  of  Erie  and 
Fenton  which  contains  11,060  acres.  It  was  organized  in  1879,  and  has  con- 
structed \y2  miles  of  levee  along  Rock  River  and  8  miles  of  interior  ditches. 
All  the  area  is  cultivated  and  is  practically  free  from  floods.  The  commis- 
sioners place  a  value  of  $175  an  acre  upon  the  land.  Some  of  the  adjoin- 
ing land  should  be  annexed  to  this  district. 

To  the  west  of  and  slightly  overlapping  Union  district  No.  1,  is  tne 
Whiteside  and  Rock  Island  Special,  which  contains  20,000  acres  and  is  the 
second  largest  district  in  Whiteside  County.  This  district  was  organized  in 
1881  and  has  built  half  a  mile  of  levee  and  30  miles  of  open  ditches.  About 
1,000  acres  in  the  district  are  not  useful.  The  land  is  overflowed  every  year 
and  plans  are  now  proposed  to  remedy  the  situation  by  building  a  levee 
from  Hillsdale  to  the  northeast  corner  of  section  27,  and  thence  north  to  the 
Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railway.  The  railway  embankment  will 
serve  as  a  levee  to  Erie  which  is  at  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  district. 
Between  the  district  and  the  river  there  are  about  3,000  acres  of  bottom  land 
that  should  be  included  in  the  district.  The  soil  is  mostly  brown  sandy  loam, 
brown  loam,  and  mixed  loam.  Nearly  all  of  this  bottom  land  is  owned  by 
one  man  who  is  opposed  to  the  project.  The  levee  should  follow  the  present 
road  along  the  river.  This  road  is  proposed  for  improvement  from  Hills- 
dale to  Erie,  and  the  drainage  district  and  county  should  join  forces  in  carry- 
ing out  this  project. 

On  the  south  and  east  of  the  bend  in  Rock  River  at  Hillsdale,  is  a  tract 
of  land  of  some  10,000  acres,  which  should  be  in  one  district.  In  1913  the 
Rock  River  Drainage  and  Levee  District  was  organized  in  the  eastern  portion 
of  this  tract.  However,  the  commissioners  could  not  agree  as  to  the  best 
plan  of  drainage  and  the  land  owners  in  the  southern  half  withdrew  and 
formed  the  Farmer's  District  (Phoenix  Township  No.  1),  embracing  3,360 
acres,  and  constructed  an  outlet  to  the  south.  In  the  original  Rock  River 
District,  however,  no  construction  work  has  been  done  as  yet.  Before  either 
of  these  districts  can  be  completely  reclaimed  a  levee  must  be  built.  The 
area  in  this  pocket  can  be  reclaimed  at  less  cost  than  any  of  the  bottom  land 
along  Rock  River. 

In  Rock  Island  County  a  streamless  valley  called  Pleasant  Valley,  lying 
between  Watertown  and  East  Moline  on  the  Mississippi  and  extending  east 
to  the  Rock  River  valley  at  Barstow,  connects  the  Mississippi  and  Rock  River 
valleys.  The  elevation  of  Pleasant  Valley  is  from  20  to  30  feet  above  the 
river  at  either  end  and  the  soil  is  largely  a  brown  sandy  loam  with  black 
mixed  loam  in  the  low  areas.     Practically  all  of  the  valley  is  included  in 


ROCK  RIVER   WATERSHED  53 

three  districts,  namely,  Union  No.  1,  Hampton  and  Zuma,  Hampton  No.  2, 
and  Hampton  No.  3,  which  together  contain  a  total  of  7,300  acres. 

West  of  Coal  Valley  an  area  of  1,400  acres  is  being  organized  into  a 
district  which  will  be  known  as  Black  Hawk  No.  1.  The  petition  has  been 
filed  and  commissioners  appointed.  This  is  the  only  new  work  being  under- 
taken in  the  Rock  river  watershed. 

From  the  mouth  of  the  river  for  a  distance  of  some  13  miles  the  valley 
is  overflowed  for  a  width  of  about  two  miles.  This  is  caused  by  backwater 
from  the  Mississippi  as  well  as  from  floods  on  Rock  River.  There  are  about 
10,500  acres  of  overflow  in  this  location  which  are  classified  in  the  Rock  River 
watershed. 

In  all,  19  districts,  containing  a  total  of  145,040  acres,  have  been  organ- 
ized in  the  Rock  River  watershed.  With  the  exception  of  the  24,000  acres 
of  wet  uplands  in  Lee  County,  and  the  74,300  acres  of  overflow  bottom  land, 
this  watershed  has  about  all  the  artificial  drainage  which  it  needs.  This  state- 
ment does  not  mean  that  there  will  be  no  more  districts  formed  except  in 
the  wet  areas  specifically  mentioned.  There  are  areas  here,  as  in  other  locali- 
ties, which  cannot  be  classed  as  wet  lands  but  which  are  not  producing  the 
crops  they  should,  due  to  too  much  free  water  in  the  soil.  Eventually,  as 
more  intensive  farming  methods  are  employed,  many  such  areas  will  be 
better  drained  through  organized  effort. 

As  mentioned  above,  certain  areas  now  within  districts  aggregating 
12,000  acres,  are  not  fully  reclaimed,  but  it  is  only  a  matter  of  time  till  they 
will  be  taken  care  of. 

Most  of  the  74,300  acres  of  bottom  lands  shown  on  the  map  and  listed 
in  Table  5  can  be  profitably  reclaimed.  Undoubtedly  the  principal  difficulty 
is  the  lack  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the  land  owners.  The  few  men  who  do 
see  the  possibilities,  have  been  preaching  drainage  for  years,  but  so  far  they 
have  been  unable  to  produce  results. 

In  a  few  places  the  channel  should  be  straightened ;  but  there  is  little 
of  this  to  do  as  compared  with  most  of  the  streams  in  the  State.  Levees 
will  have  to  be  constructed  and  pumping  plants  installed,  which  seem  pro- 
hibitive to  those  who  are  not  acquainted  with  such  works  ;  but  the  soil  is 
very  fertile  and  will  amply  pay  for  its  reclamation. 

It  is  estimated  that  approximately  12,000  acres  within  organized  dis- 
tricts may  still  be  classed  as  unreclaimed  land.  This  added  to  the  overflowed 
areas,  and  wet  uplands  listed  represents  45  per  cent  of  the  originally  wet  and 
overflowed  land  in  the  watershed  remaining  to  be  reclaimed. 


CHAPTER  V— KISHWAUKEE  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Kishwaukee  watershed  is  partly  in  Illinois  and  partly  in  Wisconsin. 
The  larger  portion  is  in  Illinois  and  comprises  some  1,200  square  miles  situ- 
ated in  Boone,  McHenry,  Kane,  DeKalb,  Ogle,  and  Winnebago  counties. 

The  thirty-one  drainage  districts  in  the  watershed  contain  a  total  of 

Table  6. — Drainage  data  for  Kishwaukee  River  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organized  districts 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 


Chemung 

Dunham  Township 

Rush  Creek 

South  Island 

Cane  Creek 

Dorr  No.  1 

Dorr  No.  2 

Kishwaukee  Special 

Coral  and  Grafton 

Rutland  and  Grafton 

Rutland  No.  1 

Coon  Creek 

Coon  Creek 

Burlington  No.  1 

Burlington  No.  2 

Virgil  No.  3 

Virgil  No.  2 

Union  No.  3,  Cortland  and  Virgil 

Virgil  No.  1 

Union  No.  4,  Cortland  and  Pierce 

Union  No.  1,  Cortland  and  Pierce 

Union  No.  1,  Afton  and  DeKalb 

Union  No.  1,  Afton  and  Milan 

Union  No.  1,  Shabbona  and  Milan 

Union  Special,  Milan,  Malta,  Afton  and  DeKalb 

Malta  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Malta  and  DeKalb 

Normal 

Kishwaukee  Special 

Kilbush  Mutual 

Kishwaukee 

Total 


Acres 

McHenry 

8,640 

McHenry 

•    2,200 

McHenry 

3,000 

McHenry 

2,460 

McHenry 

1,640 

McHenry 

2,360 

McHenry 

480 

McHenry 

5,120 

McHenry-Kane 

17,920 

Kane-McHenry 

5,000 

Kane 

2,320 

McHenry-Boone 

7,500 

Kane-DeKalb 

8,800 

Kane 

1,510 

Kane 

770 

Kane 

3,600 

Kane 

2,080 

Kane-DeKalb 

8,220 

Kane 

3,920 

DeKalb 

2,000 

DeKalb 

4,080 

DeKalb 

2,560 

DeKalb 

9,600 

DeKalb 

4,480 

DeKalb 

4,000 

DeKalb 

800 

DeKalb 

2,000 

DeKalb 

1,880 

DeKalb 

3,840 

Ogle 

1,920 

Ogle 

3,920 

128,620 


Districts  being  organised 

32 
33 
34 

North  of  Harvard 

Union  No.  1,  Hartland  and  Alden 

Deer  Creek 

Total 

McHenry 
McHenry 
DeKalb 

1,000 
4,680 
2,720 

8,400 

KISHWAUKEE  RIVER  WATERSHED 


55 


Table   6. — Drainage  Data  for  Kishwaukee  River  watershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Overflowed  areas 


35 

36 
37 


North  of  Howard 

Along  South  Branch  Kishwaukee . 
Along  Lower  Kishwaukee 

Total 


McHenry-Boone- 

Winnebago 
DeKalb-Winnebago 
Winnebago 


A  cres 


5,150 

2,300 

950 

8,400 


Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 


West  of  Hampshire 

Northeast  of  Kingston 

Northeast  of  Monroe  Center 

North  of  Nichols 

South  of  Wilkinson 

Northeast  of  Rochelle 

Southwest  of  Af ton  and  Milan  District , 


Total. 


Kane 

DeKalb 

Ogle 

DeKalb 

DeKalb 

Ogle 

DeKalb 


13,000 
2,900 
2,300 
1,400 
1,800 
2,000 
1,300 

24,700 


128,620  acres.  Three  new  districts  with  a  combined  area  of  8,400  acres  are 
being  organized.  Along  the  Kishwaukee,  including  South  Branch,  approxi- 
mately 8,400  acres  of  overflowed  lands  can  be  reclaimed.  There  are  also 
about  25,000  acres  of  wet  upland  areas  which  need  better  drainage,  which 
are  shown  on  the  map  in  green.  The  investigation  is  not  complete  with 
respect  to  this  classification,  and  without  doubt  there  are  other  areas  which 
would  be  greatly  improved  by  drainage  and  which  will  in  time  be  incorporated 
in  districts.    The  drainage  data  for  this  watershed  are  given  in  Table  6. 

In  the  extreme  northern  part  of  McHenry  County  and  bordering  on  the 
State  of  Wisconsin  is  the  Chemung  Drainage  District,  containing  8,640  acres. 
It  was  organized  in  1917,  but  no  work  has  been  done.  Since  the  history  of 
this  district  is  rather  unusual  it  is  thought  advisable  to  give  it  in  some  detail. 
The  promoters  of  this  district  did  not  care  to  go  to  the  expense  of  making 
a  detailed  survey  to  determine  the  exact  location  of  the  tile  drains  which 
were  to  be  a  part  of  the  proposed  system.  The  Levee  Act  provides  that  the 
petition  shall  state  "the  starting  point,  routes,  and  termini  of  the  proposed 
work."  The  petition  as  prepared  gave  a  detailed  statement  of  the  starting 
point,  routes,  and  termini  of  the  open  ditches,  but  all  the  tile  drains  were 
covered  in  the  following  blanket  description: 

"In  addition  to  the  above  open  ditches,  it  is  proposed  to  construct  lateral  tile 
drains,  constructed  in  such  manner  that  one  of  such  drains  shall  commence  at  each 


56  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

property  line  nearest  the  head  or  source  of  each  swale  or  valley  requiring  drainage 
throughout  said  entire  district  which  lies  within  the  watershed  of  said  open  ditches, 
and  which  property  line  intersects  said  swale  or  valley  at  the  intersection  of  such 
property  line  with  the  lowest  spot  in  such  swale  or  valley ;  thence  across  intervening 
lands  along  such  swale  or  valley  to  and  terminating  in  whichever  of  the  open  ditches 
herein  specified  would  naturally  receive  and  carry  off  the  water  falling  in  such  swale 
or  valley,  or  to  and  terminating  in  one  of  the  tile  drains  herein  specified  leading  to 
such  open  ditch  as  the  necessities  of  the  situation  may  require.  Each  of  said  tile 
drains  shall  be  constructed  with  a  slope  from  its  source  to  its  terminus  and  shall  be 
of  such  size  and  laid  at  such  depth  as  may  be  necessary  to  properly  drain  the  land 
within  the  watershed  draining  to  such  tile.  Said  tile  drains  and  open  ditches  shall 
be  so  constructed  as  to  give  each  owner  an  outlet  upon  his  or  her  premises  without 
being  compelled  to  cross  the  premises  of  any  other  person  with  any  tile  drains  he 
or  she  may  wish  to  put  in  to  complete  the  system." 

The  county  court  approved  the  form  of  the  petition  and  ordered  the 
district  organized,  and  appointed  commissioners.  The  objectors  filed  a  pe- 
tition in  quo  warranto  in  the  Circuit  Court,  which  decided  that  the  district 
had  not  been  properly  organized  due  to  insufficient  description,  and  had  no 
legal  existence.  The  case  was  then  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  which  re- 
versed the  order  of  the  Circuit  Court,  finding  that  the  description  as  above 
quoted  was  sufficient.  A  petition  for  a  rehearing  on  the  part  of  the  objectors 
was  denied.  This  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  should  prove  of  consider- 
able value  in  the  drafting  of  future  drainage  petitions.  After  being  defeated 
in  the  Supreme  Court  the  objectors  started  a  petition  to  abandon  the  dis- 
tricts under  Section  44  of  the  drainage  law  as  Amended  in  1919,  and  the 
case  is  now  in  court  for  the  fourth  time. 

An  area  of  1,000  acres  to  the  north  of  Harvard  is  proposed  for  a  dis- 
trict, but  the  information  obtained  regarding  this  area  was  rather  indefinite 
and  its  exact  status  can  not  be  given. 

To  the  east  of  Harvard,  an  area  comprising  4,680  acres,  is  being  organ- 
ized as  Union  District  No.  1  of  Hartland  and  Alden  townships. 

Dunham  Township  Drainage  District,  2,200  acres,  is  the  northernmost 
of  a  group  of  four  districts  in  the  western  central  portion  of  McHenry 
County.  The  boundaries  of  this  district  are  only  approximate  and  no  de- 
tailed information  was  secured. 

To  the  southeast  is  the  Rush  Creek  Drainage  District,  3,000  acres,  which 
was  organized  in  1908  and  completed  in  1911.  The  area  is  successfully 
drained  by  6.25  miles  of  open  ditches  and  4.2  miles  of  large  tile.  The  land 
is  underlain  at  a  depth  of  from  3  to  6  feet  by  gravel  which  makes  the  use 
of  small  tile  unnecessary  over  most  of  the  area.  Before  it  was  drained  the 
land  sold  for  about  $25  an  acre,  while  now  its  value  is  from  $75  to  $100 
an  acre. 

To  the  southwest  lies  the  South  Island  Drainage  District,  2,460  acres, 
which  was  formed  in  1915.     The  drainage  of  this  area  was  effected  through 


KISHWAUKEE  RIVER  WATERSHED  57 

the  laying  of  11.75  miles  of  tile,  varying  in  size  from  6  to  36  inches.  The 
commissioners  state  that  certain  lands  should  be  annexed.  The  improve- 
ment increased  the  value  of  the  land  from  $70  to  $150  an  acre. 

The  promoters  of  the  Cane  Creek  District,  1,640  acres,  also  had  trouble 
through  Section  44  as  amended  in  1919.  This  district  was  ordered  organized 
by  the  County  Court  in  1916  without  substantial  objection.  The  commis- 
sioner's report  was  approved  by  the  court  and  the  assessment  roll  was  pre- 
pared but  had  not  been  filed.  At  this  stage  in  the  proceedings  an  effort 
was  made  to  disband  under  Section  44  of  the  Levee  Act.  A  petition  to  this 
effect  was  presented  to  the  court  who  ordered  the  district  dissolved  upon 
the  payment  of  court  cost.  The  case  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  on 
the  ground  that  the  commissioners  had  made  contracts  with  engineer,  attor- 
neys, publishers,  and  others,  and  that  the  district  could  not  disband  without 
the  payment  of  the  debts  already  incurred.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that 
engineer's,  attorney's,  and  commissioners'  fees  could  not  be  taxed  under 
"Court  costs" ;  that  Section  44  was  not  unconstitutional,  since  the  Act  itself 
did  not  impair  any  contract,  though  the  application  of  the  Act  might ;  and 
in  the  case  in  question  that  the  order  of  the  County  Court  dissolving  the 
district  impaired  the  validity  of  the  contracts  made  by  the  commissioners 
before  the  Act  was  passed,  and  therefore  that  the  x^ct  could  not  apply  in 
this  case. 

South  of  Woodstock  lies  Dorr  Township  District  No.  1  containing  2,360 
acres.  To  the  east  of  this  is  located  Dorr  No.  2,  a  small  district  of  480  acres. 
Both  of  these  districts  were  organized  many  years  ago  under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act.  The  system  of  drainage  is  inadequate  and  these  districts 
and  the  land  between  and  around  them  should  be  organized  into  one  district. 

The  Kishwaukee  Special  district,  5,120  acres,  was  organized  in  1910. 
Adjoining  this  district  on  the  south  is  the  Coral-Graf  ton  District,  17v920 
acres,  which  is  partly  in  McHenry  County  and  partly  in  Kane.  Both  of 
these  districts  are  operating  successfully. 

Coon  Creek  district  of  McHenry  and  Boone  counties,  7,500  acres,  was 
organized  in  1914  but  is  not  yet  completed.  The  drainage  works  consist 
of  open  ditches  and  tile  drains.  The  ditches  were  constructed  in  1917,  but 
the  tile  drains  are  not  yet  completed.  The  main  part  of  this  district  is  a 
low  flat  tract  through  which  Coon  Creek  flowed  with  no  regular  channel 
for  miles.  Formerly,  only  a  poor  quality  of  slough  grass  was  grown.  Since 
the  ditches  have  been  dug,  corn  is  raised  over  the  entire  area.  Some  of  the 
adjoining  land  should  be  annexed  to  this  district. 

The  greater  part  of  McHenry  County  is  rolling  and  undulating  but  there 
are  also  many  areas  of  flat  lands.  The  streams  for  the  most  part  have  good 
fall  and  little  difficulty  is  found  in  getting  good  outlets  for  tile  drains.  The 
soil  of  this  county  is  good,  but  is  not  uniform  over  large  areas.  Many  small 
areas  underlain  by  peat  and  representing  former  lake  beds,   furnish  good 


58  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

farming  land  when  drained,  though  the  soil  is  deficient  in  potassium.    These 
areas  can  be  taken  care  of  individually. 

The  topography  of  Boone  County  is  very  similar  to  that  of  McHenry 
County.  The  Coon  Creek  district,  above  mentioned,  is  the  only  district  in 
the  county  within  the  Kishwaukee  watershed.  The  land  owners  do  not  as 
yet  recognize  the  benefits  of  drainage  and  only  a  few  of  the  more  progressive 
farmers  have  done  any  tiling.  About  50  per  cent  of  the  county  raises  half 
a  crop  half  of  the  time.  In  the  valleys  there  are  long  narrow  strips  of  wet 
lands  which  are  not  indicated  on  the  map.  The  main  area  of  wet  lands  lies 
on  each  side  of  the  Chicago  and  Northwestern  tracks  from  Caledonia  to 
Capron.  A  small  tile  factory  is  located  at  Capron.  When  the  advantages 
of  drainage  are  better  understood,  no  doubt  there  will  be  a  considerable 
amount  of  drainage  work  done  in  this  county. 

Along  the  upper  part  of  Kishwaukee  River  in  McHenry,  Boone,  and 
Winnebago  counties  there  is  a  small  amount  of  overflowed  lands,  some  5,000 
acres  in  all,  but  the  area  is  too  narrow  for  anything  but  channel  correction. 

The  topography  of  Kane  County  is  irregular  and  slightly  rolling.  In 
the  northern  portion,  are  a  great  number  of  kettle  holes,  which  for  the  most 
part  are  filled  with  peat,  though  some  contain  water. 

The  portion  of  Kane  County  which  lies  within  the  Kishwaukee  water- 
shed contains  10  drainage  districts.  Some  of  these  districts,  as  Rutland  Dis- 
trict No.  1,  are  very  old  and  the  ditches  are  in  need  of  cleaning  and  deepen- 
ing. Some  maintenance  work  is  in  progress  here.  With  the  exception  of  the 
northwest  corner  the  county  is  well  drained.  West  of  Hampshire  an  area 
of  some  13,000  acres  needs  more  drainage.  The  county  ditch  which  was  dug 
by  hand  about  40  years  ago,  to  drain  this  territory,  is  too  shallow  to  provide 
outlets  to  tile  drains  and  simply  serves  to  carry  off  some  of  the  flood  waters. 
Just  west  of  this  area,  in  DeKalb  County,  the  Coon  Creek  district  is  located, 
and  the  land  owners  in  Kane  County  are  anxious  to  improve  the  existing 
ditches  and  join  them  to  those  of  the  Coon  Creek  district.  If  the  entire 
territory  is  annexed,  the  majority  of  the  area  of  the  district  will  be  in  Kane 
County  and  as  a  result,  under  Section  58  of  the  drainage  law  as  amended 
in  1919,  all  the  proceedings  will  be  transferred  automatically  from  the  DeKalb 
County  Court  to  that  of  Kane  County.  To  avoid  this  only  a  portion  of  the 
wet  area  is  proposed  for  annexation.  It  is  proposed  to  construct  a  cut-off 
between  the  two  creeks  in  Section  20  and  thereby  use  the  upper  portion  of 
the  east  creek  for  a  drainage  ditch.  The  portion  through  Section  17  will 
receive  no  attention,  and  will  be  outside  the  district.  It  is  feared  that  the 
objectors  will  fight  the  construction  of  the  cut-off  on  the  ground  that  it 
would  divert  water  out  of  its  natural  course. 

The  Coon  Creek  district  at  present  contains  8,800  acres.  It  was  organ- 
ized in  1912  and  construction  was  completed  in  1914.  It  has  10  miles  of 
open  ditches  and  3  miles  of  large  tile.     It  is  considered  a  successful  district. 


KISHWAUKEE  RIVER  WATERSHED  59 

The  land  values  have  increased  from  $100  an  acre  to  $250  an  acre.  How- 
ever, they  are  not  entirely  free  from  overflow  and  some  flooding  was  ex- 
perienced in  1918. 

On  the  west  of  the  Coon  Creek  district,  and  just  across  a  low  divide, 
the  Deer  Creek  district,  containing  2,720  acres,  was  organized  in  1918.  The 
organization  was  complete  and  the  assessment  roll  had  been  prepared  by 
the  commissioners;  but  through  someone's  oversight,  the  assessment  roll 
was  not  filed.  The  objectors  used  this  technicality  as  a  basis  for  a  suit  which 
they  won,  with  the  result  that  the  district  was  dissolved. 

Efforts  are  now  being  made  to  re-organize  this  area.  A  wet  area  of 
about  2,900  acres  in  the  northeast  corner  of  Kingston  township  could  be  in- 
cluded in  the  Deer  Creek  district;  also  a  narrow  strip  along  the  creek  in 
sections  31,  28,  and  33,  Genoa  township  needs  better  drainage  and  might 
be  included. 

DeKalb  County  has  no  large  streams.  The  ground  is  level  or  but  slightly 
rolling,  so  that  the  natural  drainage  is  poorly  developed  and  many  outlet 
streams  have  been  dredged.  South  of  Sycamore,  practically  all  the  areas 
along  the  streams  are  in  drainage  districts.  Some  of  the  few  small  wet  areas 
remaining  undrained  are  owned  by  men  who  are  opposed  to  drainage  work. 
All  of  such  areas  could  be  annexed  to  existing  districts. 

The  Kishwaukee  Special  district  organized  in  1906,  contains  3,840  acres 
and  extends  for  a  distance  of  about  seven  miles  along  the  South  Branch  of 
Kishwaukee  River  and  the  creek  which  flows  north  and  east  of  the  city  of 
Sycamore  which  is  situated  at  about  the  center  of  the  district.  The  ditch 
originally  had  a  10-foot  bottom  width  but  it  needs  enlarging.  Eight  organ- 
ized districts,  containing  26,000  acres  of  land,  have  their  outlet  through  this 
ditch  and  as  a  result  the  Kishwaukee  district  is  overflowed  during  flood 
periods. 

Burlington  No.  1,  1,510  acres;  Burlington  No.  2,  770  acres;  Virgil 
No.  1,  3,920  acres;  Virgil  No.  2,  2,080  acres;  and  Virgil  No.  3,  3,600  acres, 
cover  the  greater  part  of  Virgil  township  and  are  all  operating  satisfactorily. 

Union  District  No.  3,  of  Cortland  and  Virgil  townships,  Kane,  and 
DeKalb  counties,  was  organized  in  1895.  It  embraces  8,220  acres  and  has 
constructed  15  miles  of  ditches.  The  main  ditch  has  a  bottom  width  of  16 
feet  and  empties  into  the  10-foot  ditch  of  the  Kishwaukee  Special.  Although 
this  area  is  overflowed  nearly  every  spring,  little  damage  results  and  the 
commissioners  feel  that  the  project  has  been  successful.  Abutting  on  the 
west  of  this  district,  is  Union  District  No.  4  of  Cortland  and  Pierce  town- 
ships, which  contains  2,000  acres;  and  joining  the  latter  district  is  Union 
No.  1  of  the  same  township,  containing  4,080  acres.  All  of  the.  above  eight 
districts  drain  through  the  Kishwaukee.  Along  the  South  Branch  of  the 
Kishwaukee  below  DeKalb,  four  districts  have  been  organized.  The  most 
easterly  of  these,  the  Union  No.  1  of  Afton  and  DeKalb  townships,  contains 


60  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

2,560  acres  and  has  its  own  outlet  in  the  river  below  the  other  districts.  The 
river  flows  through  the  center  of  Union  No.  1  of  Afton  and  Milan  townships. 
This  is  a  new  district,  having  been  completed  in  1918.  It  has  9,600  acres 
within  its  boundaries,  and  is  drained  through  13  miles  of  ditches.  In  1916 
the  land  in  this  district  sold  for  $100  an  acre;  now  it  is  priced  at  from  $250 
to  $350  an  acre.  This  is  an  excellent  example  of  the  financial  benefits  which 
are  being  received  through  drainage.  Southwest  of  this  district  a  wet  area 
which  comprises  some  1,300  acres  should  be  annexed  either  to  this  district 
or  to  the  Union  District  No.  1  of  Shabonna  and  Milan  to  the  south. 
This  latter  district  is  4,480  acres  in  extent  and  is  at  the  extreme  southern 
end  of  the  Kishwaukee  watershed. 

Adjoining  the  above  districts  on  the  north  and  extending  to  the  Chicago 
and  Northwestern  Railroad  is  the  Union  Special  District  of  Milan,  Malta, 
Afton,  and  DeKalb  townships,  which  was  completed  in  1910,  and  includes 
4,000  acres.  Seven  miles  of  ditches  and  about  five  miles  of  tile  drain  have 
been  constructed.  The  district  was  overflowed  in  1916  and  1917.  On  the 
whole  the  drainage  received  is  good  and  the  owners  are  satisfied  with  the 
results. 

To  the  north  of  the  railroad  between  Malta  and  DeKalb  there  are  three 
districts :  the  Malta  No.  1,  800  acres ;  the  Union  No.  1  of  Malta  and  DeKalb, 
2,000  acres,  and  the  Normal  district,  1,880  acres.  The  last  named  district 
completed  three-quarters  of  a  mile  of  open  ditch  and  one  mile  of  large  tile 
drain  in  1916.  The  land  has  increased  from  $125  an  acre  to  $300.  How- 
ever, all  of  this  increase  is  not  the  result  of  drainage,  as  all  the  land  in  this 
neighborhood  has  almost  doubled  in  value  since  1914. 

There  is  need  for  a  district  to  follow  the  South  Branch  of  the  river 
from  the  Union  District  No.  1,  Afton  and  DeKalb,  on  the  south  to  the  Kish- 
waukee Special  on  the  north.  About  4,300  acres  would  be  benefited  by  such 
a  district. 

North  of  Nichols  an  area  of  about  1,400  acres,  and  south  of  Wilkinson 
a  similar  tract  of  1,800  acres  need  better  drainage. 

A  considerable  amount  of  drainage  has  been  accomplished  in  DeKalb 
county  through  individual  and  mutual  effort.  As  indicated  on  the  map,  the 
portion  of  DeKalb  County  in  the  Kishwaukee  watershed  has  been  drained 
rather  completely. 

In  Ogle  County  there  are  two  districts  within  this  watershed.  The 
Killbush  Mutual  is  northeast  of  Rochelle,  just  across  the  watershed  line  from 
the  Kyte  River  district.  The  area  of  this  district  is  1,920  acres.  It  was 
organized  by  mutual  agreement,  the  cost  being  divided  among  the  owners 
according  to  acreage.  To  the  east  of  this  district  is  an  area  of  some  2,000 
acres  which  would  be  greatly  benefited  by  drainage. 

In  the  northern  part  of  Scott  Township  and  extending  into  Winnebago 


KISHWAUKEE  RIVER  WATERSHED  61 

County,  3,920  acres  have  been  included  in  the  Kishwaukee  district.  The 
outlet  is  in  the  Kishwaukee  River  only  a  short  distance  from  its  mouth. 

About  950  acres  of  overflow  land  along  the  river  might  well  be  annexed 
to  the  Kishwaukee  district. 

In  the  northeast  corner  of  Ogle  County  an  area  of  2,300  acres  of  wet 
land  could  be  improved  by  organized  drainage. 

Along  the  South  Branch  from  about  Kingston  to  its  junction  with  the 
main  river  there  is  a  narrow  strip  of  overflowed  land  containing  about 
2,300  acres,  which  might  be  reclaimed. 

To  recapitulate,  there  are  (1)  thirty-one  organized  drainage  districts 
with  a  total  of  128,620  acres,  (2)  three  districts  in  process  of  organization 
with  a  combined  area  of  8,400  acres,  (3)  8,400  acres  of  overflowed  lands, 
and  (4)  24,700  acres  of  wet  upland,  which  would  be  improved  by  drainage. 
It  is  estimated  that  about  4,000  acres  within  organized  districts  may  still  be 
classed  as  unreclaimed  land.  This  added  to  the  overflowed  areas  and  the 
wet  upland  listed  represents  22  per  cent  of  the  originally  wet  lands  in  the 
watershed  remaining  to  be  reclaimed. 


CHAPTER  VI— FOX  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Fox  River  watershed  covers  about  2,600  square  miles,  of  which 
1,630  are  in  Illinois.  The  river  rises  in  Wisconsin  about  35  miles  north  of 
the  Illinois  state  line  and  flows  south  through  Lake,  McHenry,  Kane,  DeKalb, 
and  LaSalle  counties,  emptying  into  Illinois  River  at  Ottawa.  According  to 
the  1914-15  survey  of  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission,  the  total  length 
of  the  river  channel  in  Illinois  is  114.96  miles  with  a  fall  of  282.6  feet.  Be- 
tween the  state  line  and  the  McHenry  dam  the  fall  averages  2.46  feet  per 
mile.  The  rate  of  fall  increases  until  above  Ottawa  it  is  5.85  feet  per  mile. 
The  natural  fall  of  the  river  is  broken  by  14  dams  ranging  in  height  from 
2.5  to  9.5  feet.  These  dams  are  not  objectionable  from  the  standpoint  of 
drainage.    The  drainage  data  for  this  watershed  are  given  in  Table  7. 

In  Lake  and  McHenry  counties  the  river  flows  through  Channel,  Marie, 
Grass,  Fox,  Nipersink,  and  Pistakee  lakes,  and  many  smaller  lakes  drain  into 
it.  The  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission's  report  of  1914-15  states  that  the 
total  lake  area  drained  by  the  Fox  River  is  approximately  40  square  miles. 
In  places  through  Lake  County,  the  river  flows  through  swamps  covered 
with  reeds,  cattails  and  other  swamp  growth,  and  its  identity  as  a  river 
is  practically  lost. 

On  the  map,  along  the  Lake-McHenry  County  line,  an  area  of  some 
25,000  acres  is  shown  in  green.  The  soil  here  is  very  irregular.1  Small 
scattered  areas  of  black  mixed  loam  and  larger  areas  of  deep  peat  represent 
swamp  and  bottom  land  soils;  and  about  equal  areas  of  yellow-gray  silt 
loam,  which  is  an  upland  timber  soil  type,  intervene. 

The  upper  Fox  River  valley  is  quite  a  summer  resort  area.  Many  sum- 
mer homes  have  been  built  along  the  many  lakes,  and  large  numbers  of  city 
people  are  attracted  here  during  the  hot  summer  months  by  the  fishing  and 
boating.  Hence  this  area  has  a  value  for  other  than  agricultural  purposes, 
and  there  is  strong  opposition  to  drainage.  But  without  doubt  a  large  part  of 
this  area  will  eventually  be  reclaimed  for  farming  purposes. 

Owing  to  the  decided  fall  of  the  stream  and  the  character  of  the  county 
through  which  it  flows,  the  lower  portion  of  the  river  has  little  or  no  bottom 
land  subject  to  overflow  except  in  extreme  floods  which  in  the  past  have 
occurred  at  intervals  of  about  20  years,  and  therefore  no  overflow  land  is 
listed  in  this  watershed. 

Besides  the  wet  areas  mentioned  above,  two  other  such  areas  in  McHenry 
County  would  be  benefited  by  drainage.  One  of  these,  located  south  of 
Richmond,  contains  8,000  acres,  and  the  other,  situated  north  of  Woodstock, 
covers  about  7,500  acres.  As  there  is  some  upland  prairie  around  the  edges 
not  all  the  land  included  in  these  areas  is  wet ;   but  all  of  it  would  probably 


lUniv.  of  111.  Ag.  Exp.  Sta.  Soil  Report  No.  9,  Lake  County. 


FOX  RIVER  WATERSHED 


63 


be   included   in  any   organized   effort  to   improve   the   drainage   conditions. 
Most  of  the  area  is  bottom  land  and  the  soil  is  a  black  mixed  loam. 

In  both  Lake  and  McHenry  counties  large  tracts  of  tillable  land  are 
spotted   with    many   small   peaty   areas   which   need   drainage.      Under   the 

Table  7. — Drainage  data  for  Fox  River  watershed 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organised  drainage  districts 


Greenwood  No.  1 

Hebron  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  McHenry  and  Munda 

Union  No.  2,  McHenry  and  Munda 

Union  No.  1,  Munda  and  Wauconda 

Grant  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Wauconda  and  Fremont 

Slocum  Lake 

Dorr  No.  3 

Crystal  Lake 

Union  No.  1,  Rutland  and  Plato 

Union  No.  1,  Kaneville  and  Blackberry 

Kaneville  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Kaneville  and  Pierce 

Pierce  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Clinton  and  Afton 

Big  Rock  No.  1 

Big  Rock  No.  2 

Sugar  Grove  No.  1 

Blackberry  No.  1 

Lake  Run,  Blackberry  and  Batavia 

Union  No.  1,  Aurora  and  Naperville 

Union  No.  1,  Kane  and  Kendall 

Rob  Roy,  Sugar  Grove 

Raymond 

Bristol  No.  2 ■ 

Bristol  No.  1 

Morgan  Creek 

Big  Slough 

Union  No.  1,  Northville,  Sandwich  and  Little  Rock 

Somonauk  No.  1 

Union  No.  2,  Victor  and  Somonauk 

Union  No.  1,  Victor  and  Somonauk 

Victor  No.  1 

Wyoming 

Earl  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Freedom  and  Earl 

Union  No.  1,  Freedom  and  Ophir 

Freedom  No.  1 

Union  Special,  Freedom,  Wallace,  and  Dayton 

Wallace  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Wallace  and  Dayton 

Total 


Acres 

McHenry 

2,320 

McHenry 

6,880 

McHenry 

1,040 

McHenry 

1,840 

McHenry-Lake 

980 

Lake 

700 

Lake 

600 

Lake 

1,240 

McHenry 

640 

McHenry 

1,380 

Kane-McHenry 

3,200 

Kane 

4,680 

Kane 

1,400 

Kane-DeKalb 

2,000 

DeKalb 

1,360 

DeKalb 

1,100 

Kane 

600 

Kane 

960 

Kane 

600 

Kane 

1,360 

Kane 

2,600 

Kane-Dupage 

880 

Kane-Kendall 

700 

Kane 

2,000 

Kendall 

1,270 

Kendall 

410 

Kendall 

2,020 

Kendall 

1,470 

Kendall 

2,800 

Kendall-DeKalb- 

LaSalle 

560 

DeKalb 

960 

DeKalb 

1,440 

DeKalb 

1,440 

DeKalb 

9,800 

Lee-DeKalb 

490 

LaSalle 

3,055 

LaSalle 

8,300 

LaSalle 

1,270 

LaSalle 

4,500 

LaSalle 

2,200 

LaSalle 

5,600 

LaSalle 

3,200 

91,845 


64 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  7. — Drainage  data  for  Fox  River  watershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Districts  being  organised 


42 

Lake  Villa  No.  1 

Lake 

Lake 

Lake-McHenry 

Lake-Cook-Kane- 

McHenry 
Kane 

Acres 
960 

43 

Squaw  Creek 

3,900 
4,650 

44 

Wauconda 

45 

Fox  River 

46 

Union  No.  1,  Sugar  Grove  and  Aurora 

Total 

8,840 
1,670 

20,020 

Wet  areas 

Along  Fox  River 

South  of  Richmond 

North  of  Woodstock 

Along  Blackberry  Creek 

Total 


47 
48 
49 
50 


Lake-McHenry 
McHenry 
Mc  Henry 
Kane 


25,000 
8,000 
7,500 
2,400 


42,900 


present  system  of  tractor  farming  this  is  particularly  desirable,  for  the  wet 
areas  so  cut  up  the  field  as  to  make  the  use  of  tractors  very  difficult. 

The  only  other  area  of  land  shown  on  the  map  which  needs  attention 
is  northwest  of  Aurora.  Here  some  2,400  acres  along  Blackberry  Creek 
would  be  benefited  by  the  dredging  of  a  straighter  channel  for  the  Creek. 
This  is  an  improvement  which  might  profitably  be  carried  down  as  far  as 
Yorkville,  in  Kendall  County. 

Six  drainage  districts  with  a  combined  area  of  14,100  acres  have  been 
organized  in  this  watershed  in  McHenry  County.  The  names  and  areas 
are  given  in  the  table  and  their  locations  are  shown  on  the  map.  With  the 
exception  of  Dorr  No.  3,  all  these  districts  have  been  constructed  since  1912. 
The  Dorr  district  is  not  entirely  satisfactory  and  possibly  should  be  included 
with  the  surrounding  area,  which  is  none  too  well  drained,  into  one  large 
district.  Hebron  District  No.  1  is  having  trouble  with  seepage  flow  from  the 
area  across  the  state  line  in  Wisconsin.  An  effort  is  being  made  to  remedy 
this  through  the  cooperation  of  the  upper  land  owners.  The  other  districts 
are  operating  satisfactorily. 

Three  small  districts  lie  entirely  within  Lake  County  and  a  fourth  dis- 
trict extends  into  McHenry  County.  The  combined  area  of  the  four  dis- 
tricts is  3,520  acres.  They  have  all  been  organized  since  1913.  While  they 
have  been  beneficial,  they  have  not  covered  large  enough  areas.  The  Wau- 
conda district,  4,650  acres,  is  now  being  organized  in  the  area  between  three 


FOX  RIVER  WATERSHED  65 

of  the  small  districts.  In  Lake  Villa  township,  District  No.  1,  960  acres, 
is  in  process  of  organization.  To  the  south,  along  Squaw  Creek,  a  district 
of  3,900  acres  is  being  formed.  A  considerable  amount  of  drainage  in  Lake 
County  is  needed  and,  due  to  the  work  of  the  County  Farm  Bureau,  the 
drainage  sentiment  is  much  improved  as  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  four 
districts  (two  in  Des  Plaines  watershed)  are  now  being  organized. 

In  the  northwest  corner  of  Cook  County  and  extending  into  McHenry 
and  Kane  counties,  a  district  is  being  promoted  which  will  be  known  as  the 
Fox  River  district,  and  which  will  include  about  8,840  acres. 

All  but  the  northwest  corner  of  Kane  County  drains  into  Fox  River. 
Eleven  districts  are  located  in  this  area,  three  of  which  extend  into  adjoining 
counties.  They  represent  a  combined  area  of  20,280  acres,  and  vary  individu- 
ally from  600  to  4,680  acres.  So  far  as  could  be  ascertained  these  districts 
are  considered  successful.  Some  of  the  older  ones,  such  as  Union  No.  1  of 
Rutland  and  Plato,  are  in  need  of  maintenance  work. 

One  new  district  is  organizing  in  Kane  County,  namely,  Union  No.  1 
of  Sugar  Grove  and  Aurora,  located  just  northwest  of  the  city  of  Aurora. 

Most  of  the  land  in  Kane  County  has  good  natural  drainage.  The  dis- 
tricts mentioned  above  have  taken  care  of  the  more  level  areas  and  facilitated 
their  drainage.  However,  there  are  many  pot-holes  and  small  swamps  which 
can  be  drained  by  individual  effort. 

DeKalb  County  has  seven  districts  in  the  Fox  River  watershed,  besides 
Union  No.  1  of  Kaneville  and  Pierce  which  extends  from  Kane  County.  The 
combined  area  of  the  seven  districts  is  16,660  acres. 

The  land  in  Kendall  County  along  Fox  River  is  distinctly  rolling,  but 
away  from  the  river  it  flattens  out  into  good  farming  land.  Little  drainage 
work  has  been  done  in  the  county  because  the  natural  drainage  is  good. 
Along  Blackberry  Creek  there  is  a  narrow  area  of  overflow  due  to  the 
crooked  channel.  This  stream  is  the  outlet  of  numerous  tile  drains  and  the 
area  benefited  by  its  improvement  might  warrant  the  opening  of  a  better 
outlet. 

There  are  six  organized  districts  in  Kendall  County  with  a  total  area  of 
8,670  acres.     No  new  work  is  contemplated  and  there  is  no  overflowed  area. 

The  portion  of  La  Salle  County  in  the  Fox  River  watershed  is  well 
drained  through  organized  districts  and  individual  tile  lines  to  the  natural 
outlets.  Seven  districts  are  listed  in  the  table  and  shown  on  the  map.  Most 
of  these  were  organized  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  and  as  some  of  the 
records  could  not  be  found,  the  boundaries  of  several  may  be  in  error.  All 
of  the  districts  are  operating  successfully,  and  the  value  of  the  land  is  be- 
tween $300  and  $400  an  acre. 

With  the  exception  of  the  northern  end,  the  Fox  River  watershed  is 
well  drained.     The  growing  sentiment  for  drainage  in  the  northern  end  will 


66  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

undoubtedly  result  in  more  organized  districts.     There  is  no  overflow  prob- 
lem in  this  watershed. 

To  recapitulate  :  (1)  Forty-two  districts  with  a  combined  area  of  91,845 
acres  have  been  organized  in  the  Fox  River  watershed ;  (2)  five  districts 
representing  20,020  acres  are  in  process  of  organization;  and  (3)  there  are 
42,900  acres  of  unreclaimed  land.  It  is  estimated  that  approximately  3,000 
acres  within  organized  districts  may  still  be  classed  as  unreclaimed  land. 
This  makes  a  total  of  45,900  acres  of  such  land  which  represents  30  per  cent 
of  the  original  area  subject  to  reclamation. 


CHAPTER  VII— DESPLAINES  RIVER  WATERSHED 

Desplaines  River  rises  in  Kenosha  County,  Wisconsin,  and  flows  south- 
ward through  Lake,  Cook,  and  Will  counties  to  its  junction  with  the  Kanka- 
kee River  just  west  of  the  Will-Grundy  county  line.  These  two  rivers  form 
Illinois  River.    The  drainage  data  for  this  watershed  are  given  in  Table  8. 

Table  8.— Drainage  data  for  the  Desplaines  River  watershed 


Refer- 1 
ence  [ 

No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organised  drainage  districts 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 


Warren  No.  1 

Seavey  Slough 

Vernon  No.  2 

Palatine 

Wheeling  No.  1 

Maine 

Elk  Grove 

Bartlett 

Bloomingdale  No.  1 

Addison  No.  1 

Addison 

Wayne-Winfield 

Milton  No.  4 

Milton  No.  5     (Mutual) 

Hesterman  Mutual 

Naperville  No.  2 

Naperville  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Wheatland  and  Naperville 

Eastern  Lille  Cache 

Joliet  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Orland  and  Palos 

Orland  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Bremen  and  No.  4  Orland 
Union  No.  1,  Frankfort  and  Rich 

Total 


Acres 

Lake 

1,080 

Lake 

1,010 

Lake 

1,430 

Cook 

4,560 

Cook-Lake 

5,100 

Cook 

1,680 

Cook 

3,640 

Cook 

1,000 

Dupage 

1,190 

Dupage 

800 

Cook 

680 

Dupage 

2,160 

Dupage 

1,330 

Dupage 

1,280 

Dupage 

1,440 

Dupage 

2,000 

Dupage 

880 

Will-Dupage 

500 

Will 

1,290 

Will 

540 

Cook 

1,300 

Cook 

1,100 

Cook 

1,200 

Will-Cook 

6,000 

43,190 


Districts  being  organized 


25 
26 

Avon  and  Fremont 

Buffalo  Grove 

Lake 

Cook-Lake 

Cook 

Lake 

Cook-DuPage 

4,500 
7,440 
1,440 
5,600 
13  700 

27 

Arlington  Heights 

28 

Weller  Creek 

28a 

Addison  Creek 

Total 

32,680 

Overflowed  areas 


68 


LAND    DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  8. — Drainage  data  for  the  De  splaines  River  watershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


30 
31 
32 
33 


North  of  Seavey  Slough  district. 

West  of  Bloomingdale 

East  of  Wayne-Winfield  district 
Palos  Township 

Total 


Acres 

800 

1,000 

3.000 

1,500 


6,300 


In  Lake  County  the  grade  of  Desplaines  River  is  irregular,  as  it  flows 
through  a  series  of  flat  swampy  areas  separated  by  stretches  of  greater 
slope.  The  swampy  stretches  are  too  narrow,  for  the  most  part,  to  justify 
much  expense  to  secure  protection  from  overflow.  However,  through  the 
northern  half  of  Lake  County  the  overflowed  width  is  about  half  a  mile  and 
the  area  is  about  4,000  acres,  so  that  the  strip  is  a  feasible  drainage  project. 

No  districts  have  been  organized  along  the  river  in  Lake  County.  In 
Warren  Township,  District  No.  1,  1,080  acres,  is  located.  The  land  owners 
are  satisfied  with  the  results  of  the  undertaking  and  drainage  sentiment  in 
the  neighborhood  is  good.  In  fact,  just  west  of  this  area,  the  Avon  and 
Fremont  District,  4,500  acres,  is  now  being  organized.  It  includes  the  higher 
land  along  the  watershed  line,  and  is  just  across  the  watershed  line  from  the 
Squaw  Creek  district  which  is  also  in  the  formation  stage. 

The  Seavey  Slough  District,  1,010  acres,  is  southeast  of  Leighton.  It 
was  completed  in  1910  and  has  proven  successful.  Just  north  of  this  dis- 
trict is  a  tract  of  wet  land  which  needs  draining  and  which  might  be  an- 
nexed to  the  Seavey  Slough  District. 

To  the  south,  in  Vernon  Township,  is  District  No.  2.  It  was  organized 
in  1912,  contains  1,430  acres,  and  has  accomplished  its  purpose.  Land  values 
in  the  district  have  increased  at  least  50  per  cent. 

Some  7,440  acres  in  the  southern  part  of  Lake  County  and  the  northern 
part  of  Cook  County  were  being  organized  into  the  Buffalo  Grove  District 
at  the  time  the  field  work  in  these  counties  was  in  progress  and  is  shown 
on  the  map.  However,  later  information  is  to  the  effect  that  this  district 
has  been  abandoned.  The  organization  had  reached  the  stage  where  the 
assessment  roll  had  been  submitted  to  the  court,  all  the  plans,  specifications, 
and  field  work  having  been  completed,  when,  owing  to  war  prices,  the  land 
owners  decided  to  abandon  the  district  under  section  44  of  the  drainage  law 
as  amended  in  1919.  After  several  months  of  litigation,  the  court  ordered 
the  district  abandoned  and  effected  a  compromise  between  the  district  and 
the  attorney,  engineer,  and  other  creditors  of  the  district. 


DESPLAINES    RIVER   WATERSHED  69 

Lake  County  needs  a  large  amount  of  drainage  work.  In  the  Desplaines 
watershed  but  few  sections  of  land  do  not  contain  some  wet  and  swampy 
areas.  The  interest  shown  by  the  County  Farm  Bureau  has  already  done 
much  to  create  a  drainage  sentiment  and  has  led  to  the  organization  of  the 
new  districts  in  the  county.  Undoubtedly,  many  districts  will  be  organized 
eventually. 

Through  Cook  County  the  fall  of  the  river  is  more  uniform  than  in  Lake 
County,  and  its  channel  is  more  definite.  The  river  flows  through  a  well- 
defined  valley  and  has  built  a  well-graded  flood  plain.  About  a  mile  north 
of  Summit,  the  river,  at  one  period  of  its  history,  flowed  eastward  into  Lake 
Michigan.  Later  it  cut  a  channel  through  the  moraine  to  the  west  and  dis- 
charged both  to  the  east  and  the  south.  The  Ogden  dam  was  built  to  pre- 
vent the  flow  into  Lake  Michigan;  but  its  crest  is  only  3.5  feet  above  low- 
water  and  in  times  of  flood  the  water  flows  over  the  dam  and  through  the 
Ogden  ditch  into  Chicago  River  and  thence  to  Lake  Michigan.  Due  to  this 
outlet,  the  floods  on  the  lower  river  are  not  as  large  as  those  on  the  upper 
river.  When  the  Chicago  Sanitary  Canal  was  constructed,  Desplaines  River 
was  diverted  to  the  west.  Between  Summit  and  Lemont  the  valley  floor  is 
so  noticeably  flat  that  it  is  known  as  the  "12-mile  level."  The  valley  here 
is  marshy  and  subject  to  overflow,  but  due  to  the  Illinois  and  Michigan 
Canal,  the  Sanitary  Canal,  and  the  Desplaines  itself,  there  is  no  opportunity 
for  drainage  reclamation. 

It  will  be  noted  that  on  the  map  the  watershed  line  between  the  Des- 
plaines River  and  the  Lake  Michigan  watersheds  passes  through  the  Chicago 
Sanitary  District.  The  natural  watershed  has  been  taken  rather  than  the 
artificial  one,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  benfits  of  the  above  mentioned  district 
are  almost  entirely  of  a  sanitary  nature  and  that  it  gives  comparatively  little 
agricultural  benefit.  However,  the  entire  area  of  this  district  is  listed  under 
the  Lake  Michigan  watershed. 

Exclusive  of  the  Chicago  Sanitary  District,  Cook  County  has  ten  organ- 
ized districts  in  this  watershed,  three  of  which  extend  into  adjoining  counties. 

The  Palatine  District  was  organized  in  1915,  but  owing  to  high  prices, 
construction  work  was  delayed.  With  continued  high  prices,  the  land  owners 
are  discouraged  and  are  now  in  court  asking  that  the  district  be  abandoned 
under  section  44  of  the  drainage  law.  Not  only  does  this  area  need  drainage 
but  also  several  thousand  acres  outside  of  its  boundaries. 

Adjoining  the  last  named  district  on  the  southeast,  a  tract  of  1,440  acres 
is  being  organized  into  the  Arlington  District;  and  farther  southeast  the 
Weller  Creek  District  is  in  process  of  formation.  The  area  in  the  latter  dis- 
trict as  proposed  is  5,600  acres. 

To  the  west,  the  Elk  Grove  District  has  been  constructed  along  the  head- 
waters of  Salt  Creek.  It  contains  3,640  acres  and  is  giving  satisfactory 
drainage. 


/O  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

The  Wheeling  District  No.  1,  5,100  acres,  in  Cook  and  Lake  counties, 
was  organized  with  considerable  opposition,  but  it  has  been  so  beneficial  that 
little  opposition  now  remains. 

The  Maine  District,  1,680  acres,  is  located  north  of  Park  Ridge.  Its 
organization  has  been  affirmed  by  the  Court,  and  the  assessment  has  been 
spread,  but  no  construction  work  has  been  done. 

The  Addison  Creek  District  is  one  which  is  in  process  of  organization. 
It  is  being  organized  in  Cook  County,  though  a  portion  of  the  district  is  in 
Dupage  County.  As  proposed,  it  contains  13,700  acres  and  will  be  the 
largest  district  in  the  Desplaines  watershed.  Part  of  this  district  is  in  the 
Chicago  Sanitary  District.  In  the  southern  part  of  Cook  County  two  small 
districts,  namely,  Union  District  No.  1  of  Orland  and  Palos  Townships,  and 
Orland  District  No.  2,  contain  1,300  acres  and  1,100  acres  respectively.  The 
Union  District,  organized  about  35  years  ago,  was  evidently  dissolved, 
and  in  1916  was  reorganized.  Plans  have  been  made  for  the  new  district, 
but  no  construction  work  has  been  done.  About  50  per  cent  of  the  area 
within  the  district  is  not  useful.  Orland  No.  2  was  organized  in  1881,  and 
is  not  giving  satisfactory  drainage  at  present,  as  crops  are  frequently  lost 
from  overflow.  The  ditches  have  insufficient  fall  and  silt  up  quickly,  making 
the  maintenance  cost  excessive.  This  district  is  at  the  upper  end  of  a  branch 
of  Hickory  Creek.  Extending  the  district  would  be  beneficial.  The  lower 
end  of  Hickory  Creek  is  subject  to  occasional  floods  and  will  probably  be  in- 
corporated in  a  district  in  time.  Along  the  "Calumet  Feeder"  there  is  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  swamp  land.  West  of  the  village  of  Worth  this  area 
spreads  out  and  makes  a  very  feasible  drainage  project.  An  area  of  about 
1,500  acres  is  shown  on  the  map.  For  a  width  of  about  one-fourth  mile 
along  the  "feeder"  as  far  as  Blue  Island,  swampy  conditions  exist. 

South  of  Tinley  Park  an  area  of  1,200  acres  was  incorporated  in  1913 
into  the  Union  District  No.  1  of  Bremen  and  No.  4  of  Orland. 

Union  District  No.  1  of  Frankfort  and  Rich,  in  Cook  and  Will  counties, 
contains  about  6,000  acres.  The  boundaries  of  this  district  as  shown  on  the 
map  are  only  approximately  correct. 

All  of  Dupage  County  is  within  the  Desplaines  watershed.  The  natural 
drainage  of  this  county  is  poorly  developed.  A  number  of  small  lakes  and 
hundreds  of  small  swampy  areas,  according  to  the  County  Advisor,  aggre- 
gate about  10,000  acres.  Two  of  the  larger  areas  are  shown  on  the  map, 
one  west  of  Bloomingdale,  containing  about  1,000  acres,  and  the  other  north- 
west of  West  Chicago,  covering  approximately  3,000  acres. 

All  the  streams  are  small  and  occasionally  overflow  but  the  area  is  hardly 
large  enough  to  justify  much  expense  for  reclamation.  Possibly  districts 
including  the  higher  lands  will  be  formed  along  these  streams  and  the  streams 
dredged  to  provide  better  outlets. 


DESPLAINES    RIVER   WATERSHED  71 

Nine  small  districts  with  a  combined  area  of  11,200  acres  have  been 
organized  in  Dupage  County. 

In  Will  County,  only  two  districts  are  included  in  this  watershed,  the 
East  Lille  Cache  District,  west  of  Romeo,  and  Joliet  District  No.  1,  south- 
east of  Joliet.  The  former  contains  1,290  acres  and  the  latter  540  acres. 
There  has  been  a  considerable  amount  of  private  drainage  done  in  this 
county. 

The  drainage  outlook  in  the  Desplaines  watershed  is  good.  The  old 
districts  are  comparatively  small,  averaging  about  1,800  acres;  the  new  ones 
are  much  larger  and  average  about  6,500  acres.  Undoubtedly  other  large 
districts  will  be  formed.  This  area  has  suffered  more  than  any  other  portion 
of  the  State  through  the  operation  of  section  44  of  the  drainage  law.  As 
above  mentioned  several  districts  have  been  abandoned  and  others  are  seek- 
ing to  disband.  The  engineers  and  attorneys  for  these  districts  have  suf- 
fered considerable  pecuniary  loss,  and  will  hesitate  in  the  future  to  under- 
take drainage  work  on  the  contingent  fee  basis. 

To  sum  up  the  situation  in  this  watershed  :  ( 1 )  Twenty-four  districts 
representing  43,190  acres  have  been  organized;  (2)  five  districts  with  a 
combined  area  of  32,680  acres  are  being  formed;  (3)  approximately  4,000 
acres  of  land  are  overflowed  along  Desplaines  River ;  and  (4)  at  least  6,300 
acres  of  wet  land  outside  of  the  river  bottoms  require  better  drainage.  It  is 
estimated  that  7,000  acres  within  organized  districts  (including  the  Sanitary 
District)  may  still  be  classified  as  unreclaimed  land.  Of  the  land  in  the 
watershed  originally  subject  to  reclamation,  20  per  cent  remains  unimproved. 


CHAPTER  VIII— LAKE  MICHIGAN  WATERSHED 


The  Lake  Michigan  watershed  comprises  780  square  miles  and  has  the 
distinction  of  having  the  largest  area  in  drainage  and  sanitary  districts  of 
any  watershed  in  the  State.  This  is  because  of  the  two  large  sanitary  dis- 
tricts which  have  been  organized  along  the  Lake. 

Table  9. — Drainage  data  for  the  Lake  Michigan  zvatershed 


Refer- 

ence 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

No. 

Organized  drainage  districts 

Acres 

1 

North  Shore  Sanitary 

Lake 

30,000 

2 

West  Skokie — 

Lake 

3,000 

3 

Vernon    No.  1 

Lake 

680 

4 

Union  No.  1,  West  Deerfield  and  Northfield 

Lake 

3,130 

5 

Union  No.  1,  Northfield  and  Deerfield 

Lake-Cook 

680 

6 

New  Trier  No.  la 

Cook 

910 

7 

Chicago  Sanitary 

Cook 

252,220 

8 

Union  No.  2,  Bremen  and  No.  3  Orland 

Cook 

4,400 

9 

Bremen  No.  3 

Cook 

700 

10 

Monee  No.  5 

Will 

330 

11 

Deer  Creek   No.  3 

Will 

1,560 

12 

Crete   No.  4 

Will 

860 

13 

Meyer 

Will 

1,320 

14 

Washington   No.  2 

Will 

740 

Total 

300,530 

Districts  being  organised 

^15 

East  Skokie 

Lake 

2,360 

al6 

East  Fork 

Cook 

5,000 

al7 

Westmoreland 

Cook 

1,200 

18 

Midlothian 

Cook 

11,500 

19 

North  Creek 

Cook 

12,000 

Total 

32,060 

Overflowed  area 

None 

Upland  areas  needing  drainage 

20 

Upper  end  East  Skokie 

Lake 

2,500 

21 

Upper  end  West  Skokie 

Lake 

2,000 

Total 

4,500 

aWithin  Chicago  Sanitary  District. 


LAKE    MICHIGAN    WATERSHED  73 

The  North  Shore  Sanitary  District  extends  the  entire  length  of  Lake 
County  and  varies  from  one  and  one-half  to  three  miles  in  width.  Its  area 
is  approximately  30,000  acres.  It  was  organized  in  April,  1914,  and  the 
commissioners,  through  their  engineer,  have  prepared  plans  for  the  disposal 
of  the  sewage  from  the  many  villages  and  cities  along  the  Lake  front.  How- 
ever, the  plans  have  not  as  yet  been  carried  into  effect. 

The  Chicago  Sanitary  District  was  organized  by  special  Act  of  the  Legis- 
lature in  1887.  Its  boundaries  have  been  enlarged  from  time  to  time  till 
now  253,130  acres  are  included  in  the  district.  It  extends  from  the  north 
line  of  Cook  County  on  the  north  to  the  south  boundary  of  the  city  of  Har- 
vey on  the  south.  Its  average  width  is  about  ten  miles  with  a  maximum 
width  of  17  miles.  Included  in  the  district  are  forty-six  incorporated  vil- 
lages and  cities.  The  purpose  of  the  district  is  "to  provide  for  the  disposal 
of  sewage  of  the  district  by  dilution  and  outlet  into  Illinois  River,  and  to 
provide  such  other  sewage  disposal  as  shall  preclude  the  contamination  of 
the  Lake  Michigan  supply." 

The  district  has  constructed  a  main  channel  from  Robey  Street,  Chicago, 
to  Lockport,  a  distance  of  28  miles.  In  carrying  out  this  work,  Desplaines 
River  was  diverted  for  a  distance  of  13  miles.  The  main  channel  was  ex- 
tended in  1903-07  from  Lockport  to  Joliet,  a  distanceof  4.25  miles  for  the 
purpose  of  water-power  development.  In  1910,  the  North  Shore  channel 
was  completed,  extending  from  the  Lake  at  Wilmette  to  the  North  Branch 
of  Chicago  River  at  Lawrence  Avenue,  a  distance  of  8.14  miles.  The  Calu- 
met Sag  Channel  which  is  now  under  construction  will  connect  Little  Calu- 
met River  just  east  of  Blue  Island  with  the  Main  Channel  at  Sag.  The 
length  of  this  canal  is  16.25  miles. 

The  principal  purpose  of  the  Chicago  Sanitary  District  is  sewage  dis- 
posal and  little,  if  any,  attention  has  been  given  to  agricultural  drainage. 
Consequently,  the  agricultural  areas  in  the  outskirts  of  the  district  are  not 
benefited  from  a  drainage  standpoint  and  several  drainage  districts  have  been 
and  are  being  organized  within  the  Sanitary  District. 

In  Lake  County,  five  drainage  districts  have  been  organized  in  the  Lake 
Michigan  watershed,  and  one  is  now  being  organized. 

The  West  Skokie  Drainage  District,  3,000  acres,  was  completed  in  1910. 
It  is  a  long  narrow  district  along  the  east  fork  of  the  North  Branch  of  the 
Chicago  River.  It  has  been  quite  successful  and  the  land  has  about  doubled 
in  value.  It  is  subject  to  occasional  overflow  during  heavy  floods  in  the 
spring,  but  is  free  from  excess  water  during  the  growing  season. 

North  of  the  West  Skokie  District  is  an  area  of  about  2,000  acres  which 
might  profitably  be  incorporated  in  a  drainage  district. 

Adjoining  the  West  Skokie  District  on  the  south  is  the  Union  District 
No.  1  of  Northfield  and  Deerfield,  completed  in  1919.  This  is  simply  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  West  Skokie  District.  It  contains  680  acres,  part  of  which 
is  in  the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago. 


74  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

Along  the  North  Branch  of  Chicago  River,  west  of  the  two  last-men- 
tioned districts,  Vernon  District  No.  1  and  the  Union  District  No.  1  of  West 
Deerfield  and  Northfield  were  both  organized  in  1910  and  contain  680  acres 
and  3,130  acres  respectively.  Both  districts  are  successful,  though  the  lower 
one  is  subject  to  spring  floods.  The  land  along  the  ditch  has  increased  from 
about  $100  an  acre  to  $200  an  acre. 

Along  the  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railroad  in  Lake  County  is  an 
area  about  ten  miles  long  and  one-half  mile  wide,  containing  about  2,500 
acres,  which  is  wet  and  in  need  of  drainage.  The  small  stream  through  this 
area  is  known  as  the  East  Skokie.  From  the  southern  boundary  of  this 
area,  as  shown  on  the  map,  to  the  south  line  of  Lake  County,  the  wet  area 
along  this  stream  is  now  being  organized  into  the  East  Skokie  District;  and 
where  this  district  ends,  the  East  Fork  District  is  being  formed  in  Cook 
County.  The  petition  of  the  latter  district  has  been  filed.  The  East  Skokie 
District  will  contain  2,360  acres,  and  the  East  Fork  District  5,000  acres. 
The  latter  district  is  within  the  Chicago  Sanitary  District. 

In  New  Trier  Township,  Cook  County,  District  No.  2  has  been  organ- 
ized, and,  abutting  it  on  the  south,  the  Westmoreland  District  is  being 
organized.  The  former  district  embraces  910  acres  and  the  latter  district 
1,200  acres.     Both  are  within  the  Chicago  Sanitary  District. 

In  the  southern  part  of  Cook  County  are  located  Union  District  No.  2, 
Bremen,  and  No.  3,  Orland,  and  Bremen  District  No.  3,  with  a  combined 
area  of  5,100  acres. 

Between  the  last-named  districts  and  the  Chicago  Sanitary  District,  the 
Midlothian  Drainage  District  is  in  an  advanced  stage  of  organization.  It 
will  contain  approximately  11,500  acres,  and  as  now  proposed  overlaps 
both  the  Sanitary  District  and  Union  No.  2  of  Bremen  and  No.  3  of 
Orland. 

In  the  extreme  southeastern  corner  of  Cook  County,  the  North  Creek 
Drainage  District,  12,000  acres,  has  its  petition  about  ready  to  submit  to  the 
Court. 

Within  the  Lake  Michigan  watershed  in  Wrill  County,  there  are  five 
small  organized  districts.  The  largest  of  these  contains  1,560  acres  and  the 
combined  area  is  only  4,810  acres.  All  of  these  districts  have  been  suc- 
cessful. 

To  recapitulate  for  this  watershed  :  ( 1 )  Fourteen  districts,  containing 
300,530  acres  have  been  organized;  (2)  five  districts  are  being  organized 
at  present  with  a  combined  area  of  32,060  acres;  (3)  about  5,000  acres 
at  present  in  organized  districts  which  need  better  drainage;  and  (4)  about 
4,500  acres  outside  of  districts  would  be  greatly  benefited  by  drainage.  Only 
about  3  per  cent  of  the  area  originally  subject  to  drainage  remains  unre- 
claimed. This  does  not  include  areas  which  are  now  producing,  but  which 
would  yield  better  and  larger  crops  if  tiled.  No  doubt  as  the  need  for  land 
becomes  more  acute  and  the  values  increase,  more  districts  will  be  organized 
in  this  watershed,  particularly  in  the  southern  portion. 


CHAPTER  IX— KANKAKEE  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Kankakee  watershed  comprises  about  2,150  square  miles  in  Illinois 
and  2,220  square  miles  in  Indiana.  Kankakee  River  rises  in  St.  Joseph  County, 
Indiana,  and  flows  southwesterly  for  about  80  miles,  where  it  enters  the  State 
of  Illinois  about  six  miles  east  of  Momence ;  thence  through  Momence  and 
southwesterly  to  the  mouth  of  Iroquois  River  near  Aroma;  thence  north- 
westerly through  the  city  of  Kankakee  to  its  junction  with  Desplaines  River 
in  Grundy  County. 

Table  10.— Drainage  data  for  the  Kankakee  zvatershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organized  drainage  districts 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 


Green  Garden  No.  1 

Union  No.  2,  Monee  and  Green  Garden 

Union  No.  1,  Monee  and  Will 

Eagle  Lake,  Washington  Township 

District  No.  3,  Washington 

Union  No.  1,  Washington  and  Yellowhead .  . 
Union  No.  2,  Washington  and  Yellowhead .  . 

Bartlett  Mutual 

Union  No.  2,  Sumner  and  Will 

Union  No.  1,  Will  and  Washington 

Union  No.  1,  Sumner,  Manteno  and  Will. .  .  . 

Union  No.  2,  Sumner  and  Manteno 

Manteno  No.  3 

Manteno  No.  9 

Union  No.  10,  Manteno  and  Peotone 

Union  No.  1,  Manteno  and  Peotone 

Union  No.  3,  Peotone  (Gilkerson  and  Adams) 

Union  No.  2,  Peotone  and  Wilton 

Rockville  No.  3 

Rockville  No.  2 

Rockville  No.  1 

Union  No.  1 ,  Florence  and  Wesley 

Shehan  (Florence  Township) 

Wilmington  Southern 

Roe  Special 

Union  No.  1,  Salina  and  Essex 

McGillivray 

North  Limestone 

Joe  Benes 

Raymond 

Gar  Creek 

Minnie  Creek 

Grinnell  Special 

Union  No.  5,  Bourbonnais  and  Kankakee. . .  . 

Ganeer  No.  5 

Ganeer  No.  3 

Union  No.  1 ,  Ganeer  and  Bourbonnais 

Union  No.  6,  Manteno  and  Bourbonnais 


Acres 

Will 

1,000 

Will 

1,120 

Will 

1,480 

Will 

1,000 

Will 

3,880 

Will-Kankakee 

1,440 

Will-Kankakee 

2,380 

Kankakee 

1,140 

Kankakee-Will 

2,360 

Will 

1,800 

Kankakee-Will 

1,400 

Kankakee 

1,850 

Kankakee 

2,600 

Kankakee 

870 

Kankakee-Will 

1,430 

Will-Kankakee 

660 

Will 

360 

Will 

1,720 

Kankakee 

1,200 

Kankakee 

340 

Kankakee 

1,200 

Will 

3,960 

Will 

1,440 

Will 

760 

Kankakee-Will 

3,260 

Kankakee 

880 

Kankakee-Will 

4,900 

Kankakee 

2,370 

Kankakee 

2,540 

Kankakee 

2,160 

Kankakee 

9,100 

Kankakee 

4,600 

Kankakee 

2,200 

Kankakee 

1,060 

Kankakee 

1,600 

Kankakee 

400 

Kankakee 

845 

Kankakee 

6,020 

76 


LAND  DRAINAGE  IN   ILLINOIS 


Table  10. — Drainage  data  for  the  Kankakee  watershed — Continued 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


39  Union  No.  1,  Manteno  and  Bourbonnais 

40  Union  No.  7,  Manteno  and  Bourbonnais 

41  Manteno  No.  11 

42  Manteno  No.  2 

43  Manteno  No.  12 

44  Manteno  No.  4 

45  Union  No.  8,  Manteno  and  Sumner 

46  Momence  and  Yellowhead 

47  Momence  and  Pembroke 

48  Union  No.  2,  Momence  and  Ganeer 

49  Payne-Melby 

50  Snake  Creek 

51  Spring  Creek 

52  Claussen  Park 

53  Little  Beaver  Special .-.-. 

54  Hopkins 

55  Beaver  No.  3 

56  Big  Beaver 

57  Beaver  No.  1 

58  Martinton  No.  3 

59  Papineau  No.  3 ^ 

60  Union  No.  1,  Papineau  and  Martinton 

61  Martinton  No.  4 

62  Ashkum  No.  1 

63  Union  No.  U  Martinton  and  Iroquois 

64  Iroquois  No.  1 

65  Middleport  No.  1 

66  Martinton  No.  2 

67  Beaver  No.  2 

68  Blackson 

69  North  Sheldon  and  South  Concord 

70  Eastburn  No.  2 

71  Eastburn  No.  3 

72  Eastburn  No.  1 

73  Sheldon  No.  1 

74  Sheldon  Mutual 

75  Possum  Trot 

76  Belmont  No.  1 

77  Crescent  No.  1 

78  Union  No.  2,  Crescent  and  Iroquois 

'79  Union  No.  1,  Iroquois  and  Crescent 

80  Onarga,  Douglas,  and  Danforth  Special  No.  1 

81  Danforth  No.  3 

82  Milks  Grove  Special 

83  Union  No.  1,  Ashkum  and  Danforth 

84  Lahogue 

85  Union  No.  1,  Onarga  and  Ridgeland 

86  Union  No.  2,  Onarga  and  Ridgeland 

87  Onarga  No.  3 

88  Onarga  No.  2 

89  Onarga  No.  4 

90  Onarga  No.  5 

91  Prosperity 

92  Union  No.  1,  Ridgeland  and  Artesia 

93  Union  No.  2,  Ridgeland  and  Artesia 

94  Harmony 

95  Union  No.  1,  Lyman  and  Wall 


Acres 

Kankakee 

1,600 

Kankakee 

1,075 

Kankakee 

780 

Kankakee 

760 

Kankakee 

640 

Kankakee 

1,000 

Kankakee 

460 

Kankakee 

7,800 

Kankakee 

10,880 

Kankakee 

2,320 

Kankakee 

1,050 

Kankakee 

2,300 

Kankakee 

7,040 

Kankakee 

3,200 

KankakeeTroquois 

13,920 

Kankakee 

12,320 

Iroquois 

5,400 

Iroquois 

9,120 

Iroquois 

4,640 

Iroquois 

19,820 

Iroquois 

3,380 

Iroquoi  s 

4,400 

Iroquois 

3,040 

Iroquois 

1,120 

Iroquois 

6,320 

Iroquois 

2,460 

Iroquois 

7,880 

Iroquois 

13,820 

Iroquois 

4,790 

Iroquois 

5,020 

Iroquois 

5,460 

Iroquois 

1,370 

Iroquois 

1,300 

Iroquois 

3,480 

Iroquois 

760 

Iroquois 

1,900 

Iroquois 

11,040 

Iroquois 

700 

Iroquois 

5,400 

Iroquois 

2,440 

Iroquois 

5,140 

Iroquois 

15,680 

Iroquois 

9,910 

Iroquois 

9,200 

Iroquois 

20,880 

Iroquois 

13,160 

Iroquois 

3,800 

Iroquois 

810 

Iroquois 

610 

Iroquois 

1,760 

Iroquois 

2,590 

Iroquois 

1,300 

Iroquois 

1,580 

Iroquois 

800 

Iroquois 

800 

Ford 

920 

Ford 

5,640 

KANKAKEE    RIVER    WATERSHED 


77 


Table  10. — Drainage  data  for  the  Kankakee 

watershed — Concluded 

Refer- 
ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

96 

Iroquois 

Iroquois 

Iroquois-Vermilion 

Vermilion-Iroquois 

Vermilion 

Vermilion 

Acres 
6,820 
9,350 

97 

98 
99 

Fountain  Creek  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Butler  and  Fountain  Creek 

5,500 

2,720 

960 

100 

101 

Reilly .             

900 

Total 

392,360 

Districts  being  organised 


102 
103 
104 
105 


Bourbonnais  Mutual 

Beaver  No.  3  extension 

Coon  Creek 

Union  No.  1,  Fountain  Creek  and  Pidgeon  Grove 

Total 


Kankakee 
Iroquois 
Iroquois 
Iroquois 


1,700 
7,760 
7,080 
1,120 

17,660 


Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 


Area  north  of  Monee 

Old  Canavan 

Southeast  Corner  Rockwell  Township 

Custer  and  Reed 

Salina  and  Limestone  Townships 

Gar  Creek  extension 

Minnie  Creek  extension 

Area  west  of  Fountain  Creek  Dist , 

Area  surrounding  Union  No.  1,  Butler  and  Fountain 
Grove 


Total . 


Will 

Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Iroquois -Verm  ili  on 

Vermilion-Iroquois 


1,500 
3,400 
1,000 
3,680 
8,100 
6,000 
9,640 
11,680 

23,000 

68,000 


The  principal  tributaries  are  Yellow  River  in  Indiana  and  Iroquois  River 
in  Illinois. 

The  Kankakee  valley  is  divided  into  two  basins  by  a  ledge  of  limestone 
which  crosses  it  between  Momence  and  the  State  line.  The  upper  basin  is 
approximately  level,  the  river  having  a  fall  of  about  6  inches  to  the  mile, 
and  originally  about  400,000  acres  in  this  basin  was  a  large  swamp.  Below 
Momence  the  valley  is  entirely  different.  While  the  country  is  flat,  there 
are  no  swamps  of  any  magnitude,  and  the  banks  of  the  river  are  high  enough 
to  prevent  overflow,  except  in  extreme  floods. 

Because  of  the  large  amount  of  swamp  land  involved,  the  State  of  In- 
diana has  given  some  assistance  in  remedying  the  situation.  In  1889  the 
Legislature  of  that  State  made  an  appropriation  of  $40,000,  and  in  1891  an 
additional  sum  of  $25,000  was  given.  With  this  money  the  channel  of  the 
river  at  Momence  was  widened  to  300  feet,  and  deepened  2.5  feet  for  a  dis- 


78  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

tance  of  8,650  feet.  This  work  was  completed  in  1893.  Since  then  Indiana 
has  given  no  more  assistance  in  the  reclamation  of  this  area,  but  a  movement 
is  on  foot  to  ask  the  1921  Legislature  for  more  assistance. 

Since  1893,  the  drainage  of  the  higher  lands  at  the  upper  end  of  the 
watershed  in  Indiana  has  proceeded,  and  the  upper  half  of  the  river  has 
been  straightened  through  organized  districts,  which  has  resulted  in  the  seri- 
ous flooding  of  the  lower  half  of  the  Indiana  watershed  where  the  river 
channel  is  shallow  and  crooked.  Since  the  Momence  ledge  holds  back  the 
flood  waters,  the  eastern  part  of  Kankakee  County  suffers  from  the  water 
flowing  in  from  Indiana. 

The  land  owners  in  Indiana  secured  the  assistance  of  the  Drainage  In- 
vestigations Division  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  by  whom  a 
survey  was  made  in  1905  and  1906,  and  a  report  was  issued  in  1909,  which 
contained  plans  for  reclamation.  These  plans  provided  for  the  lowering  of 
the  Momence  ledge  another  2.5  feet.  However,  no  steps  have  been  taken 
toward  carrying  out  these  plans. 

In  Illinois,  the  Momence  and  Yellowhead  Union  District  No.  1  was 
organized  in  1912  for  draining  7,800  acres  of  swamp  land  north  of  the  river, 
between  Momence  and  the  State  line.  Nineteen  miles  of  open  ditches  and 
six  miles  of  large  tile  drains  were  completed  by  1915.  There  are  lands  out- 
side the  district  which  should  be  annexed.  The  commissioners  state  that 
the  district  is  not  subject  to  overflow  and  that  all  the  lands  have  adequate 
outlets. 

On  the  opposite  side  of  the  river  is  Union  District  No.  1,  of  Momence 
and  Pembroke,  the  area  of  which  is  10,880  acres.  Its  drainage  works  con- 
sist of  8  miles  of  open  ditches.  The  project  has  not  been  entirely  successful. 
According  to  the  commissioners,  about  65  per  cent  of  the  land  is  not  well 
drained,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  main  ditch  was  not  dredged  deep  enough. 
The  Momence  ledge  causes  a  high  water-table  throughout  the  district.  The 
commissioners  are  planning  to  improve  the  ditches  and  some  consideration 
has  been  given  to  the  lowering  of  the  rock  ledge  about  two  feet  for  a  few 
hundred  feet  at  its  highest  point. 

Between  these  two  districts  the  river  bottom  is  about  one  mile  wide  for 
a  length  of  about  five  miles.  There  are  about  3,000  acres  in  this  strip  along 
the  river.  Because  of  the  large  volume  of  Indiana  water  and  the  consequent 
need  of  a  wide  floodway,  little  of  this  land  can  be  reclaimed,  and  none  can 
be  reclaimed  without  lowering  the  Momence  ledge.  This  would  also  result 
in  greater  flood  flows  in  the  river  below  Momence  which  might  be  injurious 
to  the  deep  waterway  now  under  construction  along  Illinois  River.  This  is 
a  factor  which  must  be  considered  before  the  State  gives  permission  for  any 
agency  to  lower  the  ledge.  However,  if  no  objections  are  found  on  this  score, 
the  improvement  might  be  brought  about  by  the  cooperation  of  the  two  states. 

Twenty-eight  per  cent  of  the  Illinois  area  in  the  Kankakee  watershed 


KANKAKEE    RIVER    WATERSHED  79 

is  in  organized  drainage  districts.  The  map  shows  the  location  and  distribu- 
tion of  these  districts,  and  Table  10  gives  their  names  and  areas.  A  total 
of  101  districts  has  been  formed  with  a  combined  area  of  392,360  acres. 
Four  districts  are  now  in  the  process  of  organization  with  a  total  area  of 
17,660  acres. 

No  overflowed  areas  are  listed  for  this  watershed,  though  the  area  east 
of  Momence  might  properly  have  been  so  given.  Also  along  Iroquois  River, 
which  has  a  rock  bottom,  there  is  some  flooding  at  times.  Some  of  the 
larger  creeks  also  occasionally  overflow  because  of  inadequate  outlet. 

Below  Momence,  Kankakee  River  has  a  fall  of  about  2.5  feet  per  mile. 
Several  dams  have  been  built  across  the  stream,  but  they  are  not  objectionable 
from  a  drainage  standpoint.  One  is  located  at  Aroma  and  another  at  Kanka- 
kee.   The  latter  is  used  for  power  development. 

North  of  Kankakee  River  the  districts  are  comparatively  small,  and 
more  scattered  than  they  are  south  of  the  river.  Most  of  them  are  under 
2,000  acres  in  area.  The  Union  District  No.  1  of  Momence  and  Yellowhead 
above  mentioned  is  the  largest  of  those  north  of  the  river.  The  value  of 
the  land  in  these  districts  varies  from  $225  to  $350  an  acre.  All  of  these 
districts  are  successful  and  drainage  sentiment  is  good. 

North  of  the  city  of  Kankakee,  an  area  of  1,700  acres  is  now  being  or- 
ganized into  the  Bourbonnais  Mutual.  North  of  this  area,  in  the  southeast 
corner  of  Rockwell  Township,  there  is  an  area  of  1,000  acres  which  needs 
more  drainage  and  a  district  is  being  proposed.  This  area  is  shown  in  green 
on  the  map,  reference  number  108. 

Northeast  of  Momence  an  area  of  3,400  acres  is  shown  in  green.  This  is 
the  land  covered  by  the  petition  of  the  Canavan  District  which  failed  to  per- 
fect its  organization. 

North  of  Monee  is  another  wet  area  which  would  be  improved  by 
drainage. 

South  of  Kankakee  River  the  districts  are  much  larger,  and  adjoin  each 
other  to  a  large  extent.  It  is  not  thought  necessary  to  mention  each  of  these 
districts  individually  since  most  of  them  are  providing  satisfactory  drainage, 
and  since  their  names,  magnitudes,  and  locations  are  given  in  the  table  or 
on  the  map.  Hence  only  the  larger  ones  or  those  which  are  of  interest  for 
other  reasons  will  be  discussed. 

Southwest  of  the  city  of  Kankakee  the  Gar  Creek  District  was  organ- 
ized in  1878.  It  has  been  enlarged  from  time  to  time  and  new  work  done. 
The  final  construction  work  was  completed  in  1914.  It  contains  9,100  acres 
and  in  all  six  miles  of  open  ditches  have  been  dredged  and  seven  miles  of 
tile  drain  have  been  laid.  Southwest  of  the  district  is  an  ara  of  about  6,000 
acres  which  would  be  improved  by  drainage  and  which  might  be  annexed  to 
this  district.  The  Minnie  Creek  District  joins  the  Gar  Creek  District  on  the 
south.     This  district  comprises  4,600  acres  and  there  is  talk  of  enlarging  it 


80  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

by  taking  in  an  area  of  about  9,600  acres  on  the  south.  This  area,  as  well 
as  the  one  to  the  west,  is  shown  in  green  on  the  map.  This  land  is  all  culti- 
vated and  producing  crops  but  would  be  benefited  by  more  thorough  drainage. 

The  North  Limestone  Drainage  District  (No.  28  on  the  map)  has  done 
no  construction  work  as  yet.  The  district  was  organized  without  any  special 
difficulty,  the  commissioners  were  appointed,  and  the  assessment  roll  was 
filed.  At  this  stage  in  the  proceedings  the  objectors  began  their  fight.  They 
first  tried  to  get  their  assessments  reduced,  but  were  unsuccessful.  They  next 
assailed  the  engineer's  estimate,  stating  that  the  amount  of  rock  excavation 
given  in  it  was  too  low.  Investigation  of  this  matter  upheld  the  engineer's 
estimate.  They  then  circulated  a  petition  to  abandon  the  district,  but  were 
unable  to  secure  the  requisite  number  of  signatures.  At  present  they  are  in 
court,  objecting  to  the  organization  of  the  district  on  the  grounds  that  the 
engineer's  fee  is  too  high.  So  far,  construction  work  has  been  delayed  a 
year.  However,  it  is  the  general  opinion  that  the  district  will  win  out  in 
its  fight. 

The  Little  Beaver  Special  District,  13,920  acres,  was  organized  in  1911, 
but  experienced  considerable  opposition,  and  was  not  completed  until  1918. 
It  has  not  been  entirely  successful,  and  some  of  the  lower  parts  of  the  dis- 
tricts are  not  well  drained.  Considerable  internal  friction  has  increased  the 
cost  of  the  project  and  prevented  the  best  results. 

Martinton  District  No.  3,  one  of  the  oldest  and  largest  districts  in  the 
watershed,  was  organized  in  1880,  and  now  contains  19,820  acres.  Thirty 
miles  of  open  ditches  and  twenty  miles  of  large  tile  drains  have  been  con- 
structed. Its  outlet  is  in  Iroquois  River  which  at  times  causes  a  small  amount 
of  flooding  in  the  lower  end  of  the  district.  However,  but  little  land 
is  not  well  drained,  and  the  district  is  considered  a  successful  one. 

All  of  the  districts  along  Iroquois  River  are  subject  to  flooding  during 
high  water  stages.  Such  flooding  occurred  in  1902,  1904,  and  1914.  The 
overflowed  areas  along  the  Iroquois  are  in  small  pockets  which  do>  not  warrant 
reclamation  on  a  large  scale. 

Eastburn  District  No.  2  has  been  only  partly  satisfactory,  because  the 
tile  drains  were  not  large  enough.  Part  of  the  district  is  flooded  nearly  every 
year  and  the  commissioners  are  contemplating  improvements. 

Union  District  No.  2  of  Crescent  and  Iroquois  townships  was  organ- 
ized in  1893  and  additional  work  was  completed  in  1908.  The  land  is  valued 
at  about  $225  an  acre.  Of  the  2,440  acres  in  the  district,  about  500  acres 
are  not  useful.  The  district  has  not  given  the  drainage  expected  since  the 
upper  end  of  the  ditch  fills  with  quicksand  and  the  lower  end  needs  deepening. 
Also  the  main  ditch  should  be  continued  to  the  river,  and  certain  adjoining 
areas  should  be  annexed. 

Surrounding  the  city  of  Gilman  is  the  Special  District  No.  1  of  Onarga, 
Douglas,  and  Dan  forth  townships,  completed  in  1888,  and  including  15,680 


KANKAKEE    RIVER    WATERSHED  81 

acres.  The  low  areas  in  the  district  are  overflowed  by  heavy  rains  due  to 
silting  up  of  ditches.  The  ditches  were  cleaned  out  in  1902,  and  the  com- 
missioners are  now  planning  to  clean  them  again.  The  land  in  this  neighbor- 
hood is  valued  at  from  $300  to  $350  an  acre. 

Union  District  No.  1,  Ashkum  and  Dan  forth  townships,  embraces  20,880 
acres  and  is  the  largest  one  in  the  watershed.  It  consists  of  35  miles  of 
ditches  and  10  miles  of  tile  drains  which  were  completed  in  1886.  The  dis- 
trict is  giving  complete  satisfaction. 

In  the  northeastern  corner  of  Iroquois  County  a  new  area  is  being  an- 
nexed to  Beaver  District  No.  3  (No.  55  on  map).  This  area  is  in  two  par- 
cels; one  on  the  north  containing  2,700  acres  which  is  shown  on  the  map 
with  reference  number  103 ;  and  the  other  on  the  west  containing  5,060 
acres,  which,  through  error,  is  not  indicated  on  the  map. 

North  of  Mil  ford,  the  Coon  Creek  District  is  being  organized,  with  a 
proposed  area  of  7,080  acres. 

In  the  southern  part  of  Iroquois  County,  Union  District  No.  1  of  Foun- 
tain Creek  and  Pidgeon  Grove  townships,  involving  an  area  of  1,120  acres, 
is  in  process  of  formation. 

North  of  Rankin,  an  area  of  approximately  11,700  acres  presents  a  pos- 
sible drainage  project.  Drainage  sentiment  in  this  community  is  divided. 
One  of  the  commissioners  of  Fountain  Creek  District  No.  1  states  that  he 
has  been  asked  many  times  to  assist  in  organizing  a  district  in  this  area  and 
had  not  done  so  because  of  the  amount  of  work  required  to  organize  a  district 
under  the  drainage  law. 

To  the  east  of  the  Fountain  Creek  District  No.  1  is  a  still  larger  area, 
23,000  acres,  which  needs  better  drainage  and  which  might  form  several  dis- 
tricts. The  commissioner  above  referred  to  made  a  similar  statement  re- 
garding part  of  this  area. 

Southwest  of  Custer  Park,  Will  County,  the  land  is  badly  in  need  of 
drainage.  Part  of  this  area  was  included  in  Union  District  No.  1,  Custer 
and  Reed  townships,  which  failed  in  its  attempt  to  organize.  This  area  is 
shown  in  green  as  area  No.  109  on  the  map. 

Northwest  of  Kankakee  is  another  wet  area  (No.  110  on  map)  for 
which  plans  of  organization  are  being  made.  This  is  shown  on  the  map  in 
green  rather  than  blue  since  the  plans  have  not  proceeded  far  enough  to* 
place  this  area  in  the  latter  classification. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  said  that,  although  a  large  amount  of  drainage 
work  has  already  been  done  in  the  Kankakee  watershed,  areas  still  remain 
which,  although  producing,  are  in  need  of  better  drainage  and  which  will 
undoubtedly  be  incorporated  into  drainage  districts  eventually.  Not  only 
the  areas  shown  in  green  come  under  this  statement,  but  also  other  areas 
not  so  indicated. 

It  is  estimated  that  approximately  4,000  acres  within  organized  districts 
need  further  attention,  making  a  total  of  72,000  acres  of  such  land.  This 
represents  15  per  cent  of  the  watershed  area  originally  subject  to  drainage. 


CHAPTER  X— VERMILION   RIVER  WATERSHED1 

The  Vermilion  watershed  covers  parts  of  Iroquois,  Ford,  Livingston, 
McLean,  and  La  Salle  counties,  and  comprises  approximately  1,290  square 
miles  of  area. 

This  watershed  is  in  the  "corn  belt"  area  and  it  is  level  to  slightly  roll- 
ing. The  streams  lie  in  shallow  valleys  and  there  is  not  much  change  in  the 
topography  or  soils  adjacent  to  them.  The  North  Fork  of  Vermilion  River 
has  its  source  in  Ford  County,  in  T.  25  N.,  R.  9  E.  It  flows  in  a  general 
northerly  direction  for  about  ten  miles  where  it  turns  west  and  enters  Liv- 
ingston County,  where  after  flowing  for  15  miles,  it  is  joined  by  South  Fork 
which  also  has  its  source  in  Ford  County  in  T.  25  N.,  R.  8  E.  The  river  then 
flows  northwesterly  through  Pontiac  and  Streator  and  empties  into  Illinois 
River  opposite  La  Salle. 

Almost  the  entire  watershed  in  Iroquois  and  Ford  counties  has  been 
drained.  Five  districts  with  a  combined  area  of  47,160  acres  empty  their 
waters  into  North  Branch  about  three  miles  west  of  the  Livingston-Ford 
county  line. 

The  largest  of  these  districts  is  the  Vermilion  Special,  containing  36,460 
acres,  which  was  organized  in  1880.  From  the  standpoint  of  design,  con- 
struction, and  organization,  this  is  one  of  the  best  districts  in  the  State.  The 
commissioners  state  that  there  has  never  been  any  litigation  in  the  district 
and  that  every  dollar  of  assessment  has  gone  into  the  drainage  works  of  the 
district.  This  is  unusual  for  so  large  a  district.  There  are  36.5  miles  of 
ditches  which  are  of  ample  capacity  and  which  have  been  well  maintained. 
Nevertheless,  during  flood  periods  the  lower  end  of  the  district  is  subject  to 
overflow  because  of  very  inadequate  outlet  into  the  river  whose  channel  is 
much  smaller  than  the  main  ditch  of  the  district.  The  river  overflows  its 
banks  almost  to  Pontiac  and  causes  considerable  crop  losses. 

The  commissioners  of  the  Vermilion  Special  are  cooperating  with  the 
owners  below,  and  the  North  Vermilion  District  is  now  being  organized. 
This  district  is  about  four  miles  wide  for  most  of  its  length  and  extends 
for  18  miles  along  the  river.  It  will  contain  37,220  acres.  This  is  a  much- 
needed  improvement,  giving  as  it  does  an  outlet  to  the  districts  which  have 
alreadv  been  formed  and  to  those  areas  which  have  been  deterred  from  com- 
bined drainage  due  to  insufficient  outlet. 

To  the  north,  the  Bergman-Goodman-Taylor  District  drains  2,760  acres 
into  the  Vermilion  District. 

Union  Drainage  District  No.  1,  Pella  and  Brenton,  embraces  10,200 
acres  along  the  upper  end  of  North  Fork.  This  district  was  organized  about 
1883  and  has  constructed  19  miles  of  ditches  varying  from  20  to  60  feet  in 


ilnto  Illinois  River. 


VERMILION    RIVER    WATERSHED 


83 


width.  The  ditches  were  redredged  in  1904  and  again  in  1918  and  are  in 
first-class  condition.    Its  outlet  is  in  the  Vermilion  Special. 

Pella  Township  Districts  No.  1  and  No.  2  cover  the  area  between  the  last 
two  mentioned  districts.  The  Vermilion  Special  District  overlaps  both  of 
the  Pella  Districts. 

All  of  these  districts  suffer  from  a  lack  of  sufficient  outlet  and  will  be 
greatly  benefited  by  the  new  district  to  the  west. 

Table  11. — Drainage  data  for  the  Vermilion  River  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organised  drainage  districts 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
l31 
*32 
*33 
34 

35 
36 


Farm  Ridge  No.  1 

Allen  No.  1 

Richland  Mutual  No.  1 

Richland  Mutual  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Reading  and  Osage 

Reading  No.  1 

Reading  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Long  Point  and  Reading. . . . 
Union  No.  2,  Long  Point  and  Groveland . 

Long  Point  No.  2 

Long  Point  Mutual  No.  1 

Long  Point  No.  3 

Long  Point  No.  1 

Pontiac  No.  1 

Owego 

Union  No.  2,  Eppard's  Point  and  Pontiac 
Union  No.  3,  Eppard's  Point  and  Pontiac 

Eppard's  Point  No.  2 

Eppard's  Point  No.  4 

Union  No.  1,  Eppard's  Point  and  Pike. . . . 

Eppard's  Point  No.  3 

Farmer's  Co-operative 

Golden  Rule 

Yates 

Travis 

Belle  Prairie 

Roth  Mutual 

Oliver  and  Corn  Grove 

Monahan  Mutual 

Charlotte  Mutual 

Union  No.  1,  Pella  and  Brenton 

Pella  No.  2 

Pella  No.  1... 

Vermilion  Special 


Sullivan  No.  2 

Bergman-Goodman-Taylor . 

Total 


Acres 

La  Salle 

1,200 

La  Salle 

1,070 

La  Salle 

900 

La  Salle 

1,100 

Livingston-La  Salle 

1,410 

Livingston 

1,350 

Livingston 

250 

Livingston 

1,960 

Livingston-La  Salle 

3,100 

Livingston 

1,000 

Livingston 

600 

Livingston 

1,280 

Livingston 

4,50 

Livinsgton 

15,400 

Livingston 

1,204 

Livingston 

1,240 

Livingston 

860 

Livingston 

810 

Livingston-McLean 

1,000 

Livingston 

960 

Livingston 

630 

Livingston 

7,320 

McLean-Livingston 

11,300 

McLean 

11,300 

McLean 

1,690 

Livingston-McLean 

5r890 

Livingston 

600 

Livingston 

3.000 

Livingston 

1,500 

Livingston 

980 

Ford 

10,200 

Ford 

2,840 

Iroquois-Ford 

5,080 

Iroquois-Ford-Living- 

ston 

36,480 

Livingston 

2,420 

Iroquois-Ford 

2,760 

134,240 


aPartly  in  Vermilion  Special  District. 


84 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  11.- 

—Drainage  data  for  the  Vermilion  River  watershed — Concluded 

Refer- 
ence 

No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

Districts  being  organized 

37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 


Eagle  Lake  Special 

Reading  Mutual 

Union  No.  3,  Long  Point  and  Nebraska 

North  Vermilion 

Eppard's  Point  and  Avoca 

Avoca  and  Indian  Grove 

Total 


sieves 

a  Salle 

2,900 

ivingston 

1,040 

ivingston 

2,480 

ivingston 

37,220 

iivingston 

5  800 

ivingston 

5,260 

54,700 


West  of  Cullom,  in  Sullivan  Township,  is  situated  District  No.  2  which 
was  completed  in  1919  and  contains  2,420  acres.  This  area  was  flooded 
yearly  before  the  ditches  were  dug,  but  now  has  thorough  drainage.  Before 
1916,  the  land  was  valued  at  $200  an  acre ;  now  the  value  has  increased  to 
$350  an  acre.  There  are  other  areas  to  the  west  which  could  profit  through 
organized  drainage. 

To  the  east  of  Charlotte,  Livingston  County,  the  Charlotte  Mutual  drains 
some  980  acres;  and  to  the  west  of  Charlotte  1,500  acres  have  been  organ- 
ized into  the  Monahan  Mutual.  Parts  of  both  these  districts  are  included 
within  the  proposed  boundaries  of  the  North  Vermilion  District. 

Only  one  district  has  been  organized  along  South  Fork,  namely,  the 
Oliver  and  Corn  Grove  District  in  the  southeastern  corner  of  Livingston 
County.  There  are  3,000  acres  here  which  are  drained  through  ten  miles  of 
open  ditches  and  one  mile  of  large  tile.  The  district  was  completed  in  1901 
and  as  a  result  of  drainage  the  land  has  increased  in  value  to  about  $300  an 
acre.     The  district  was  overflowed  in  1904  and  1916. 

In  T.  25  N.,  R.  7  E.,  along  Indian  Creek,  portions  of  sections  6,  7,  8,  9, 
and  10  are  flooded  during  heavy  rains  and  at  times  the  crops  are  drowned 
out.  The  sentiment  is  that  Indian  Creek  should  be  dredged  to  provide  a 
better  outlet  for  the  area  through  which  it  flows. 

In  the  southwestern  corner  of  Livingston  County  there  are  three  dis- 
tricts which  empty  into  Indian  Creek.  The  largest  of  diese  is  the  Belle 
Prairie  District  at  the  upper  end  of  the  watershed.  It  is  partly  in  Livingston 
and  partly  in  McLean  County  and  contains  5,890  acres.  It  was  completed 
in  1915  and  consists  of  7  miles  of  ditches  and  7  miles  of  large  tile.  The 
success  of  this  district  has  created  a  very  favorable  sentiment  for  drainage 
and  it  is  only  a  matter  of  time  till  all  lands  in  this  neighborhood  will  be  in- 
corporated into  districts. 

The  Roth  Mutual  is  a  small  district  of  600  acres  just  north  of  the  Belle 
Prairie  District.    It  has  its  outlet  in  Indian  Creek  and  is  a  tile  district.   There 


VERMILION    RIVER    WATERSHED  85 

is  a  growing  sentiment  in  this  territory  to  use  large  tile  drains  whenever 
possible  in  place  of  small  open  ditches.  The  Travis  District,  organized  in 
1918,  is  the  third  district  along  Indian  Creek.  It  drains  1,690  acres  through 
two  miles  of  open  ditches  and  two  miles  of  large  tile. 

Practically  all  the  land  south  of  Pontiac  in  Ts.  26  and  27  N.,  R.  5  E.,  is 
in  drainage  districts.  The  six  districts  at  the  northern  end  of  this  tract  are 
small,  having  a  combined  area  of  5,500  acres.  However,  the  three  districts 
at  the  southern  end  are  comparatively  large  ones.  The  Farmers  Cooperative 
District  contains  7,320  acres,  was  organized  in  1917,  and  is  still  under  con- 
struction. The  Golden  Rule.  District,  Livingston  and  McLean  counties,  and 
the  Yates  District,  McLean  County,  each  comprise  11,300  acres.  All  of  these 
districts  are  accomplishing  their  purpose. 

Northwest  of  Fairbury  two  large  districts  are  being  formed.  They  are 
the  Union  District  of  Eppard's  Point  and  Avoca,  5,800  acres,  and  the  LTnion 
District  of  Avoca  and  Indian  Grove,  5,260  acres. 

East  of  Pontiac,  the  Owego  District  was  organized  in  1915  and  completed 
in  1916.  There  are  4,120  acres  in  this  area.  The  drainage  works  consist  of 
five  miles  of  ditches  and  3.5  miles  of  large  tile.  Some  of  the  land  in  this 
district  increased  in  value  $100  an  acre,  due  to  the  improvement.  The  com- 
missioners state  that,  while  their  district  contains  all  the  lands  that  it 
should,  there  is  a  considerable  amount  of  near-by  land  wrhich  should  be 
formed  into  districts.  The  sentiment  here  is  also  for  tile  drains  where 
possible,  as  it  has  been  found  that  small  open  ditches  silt  up  quickly  and  re- 
quire constant  maintenance  to  keep  small  tile  outlets  open. 

The  names  of  three  districts  in  Livingston  and  Ford  counties  were  ob- 
tained, but  no  definite  information  could  be  secured  concerning  them.  These 
are  Sullivan  District  No.  1,  Union  District  No.  1  of  Mona,  Pella,  and  Sullivan 
townships,  and  the  "Ottmiller"  District.  A  large  amount  of  private  tiling 
has  been  done  in  Livingston  County  and  a  number  of  small  mutual  districts 
have  been  constructed  of  which  there  is  no  record.  Hence  the  total  area  in 
drainage  districts  as  given  for  this  county  is  too  small. 

North  of  Pontiac,  District  No.  1  has  drained  1,540  acres.  To  both  the 
northeast  and  northwest  of  this  district  are  areas  of  land  which  have  tight 
clay  sub-soils  and  are  badly  in  need  of  drainage. 

Around  Long  Point,  nine  small  districts  have  been  constructed,  and  one 
is  now  being  formed. 

West  of  Streator,  two  small  districts  are  in  process  of  organization. 

In  LaSalle  County,  within  the  Vermilion  watershed,  very  little  drain- 
age work  has  been  done  through  organized  efTort.  Only  four  small  districts 
of  about  1,000  acres  each  were  located  and  these  were  organized  under  the 
Farm  Drainage  Act.  However,  a  large  amount  of  individual  drainage  work 
has  been  done  and  possibly  some  through  mutual  districts.  The  upland 
areas  are  flat  and  have  poor  natural  drainage.   Nevertheless  the  soil  responds 


86  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

readily  to  tile  drainage,  and  the  county  seems  to  be  well  drained.  The  river 
has  cut  a  deep  channel  and  there  is  practically  no  land  subject  to  overflow — 
only  a  few  pockets  here  and  there. 

No  overflow  areas  are  shown  for  this  watershed,  since  the  North  Ver- 
milion District  will  take  care  of  the  only  important  area  of  this  kind.  While 
some  of  the  creeks  get  out  of  their  banks  at  times,  the  width  of  overflow  is 
narrow  and  does  not  furnish  a  serious  problem.  In  every  such  case  the  or- 
ganization of  a  local  district  will  remedy  the  situation. 

Thirty-six  districts,  having  a  total  area  of  134,240  acres,  are  listed  in 
Table  11  and  shown  on  the  map.  A  few  small  districts  were  not  located. 

Six  districts  having  a  combined  area  of  54,700  acres  are  in  process  of 
organization. 

Livingston  County  offers  a  fertile  field  for  future  drainage  work.  The 
soil  is  very  rich  and  when  well  drained  has  a  value  of  about  $350  an  acre. 
A  large  amount  of  land  whose  present  value  is  around  $200  an  acre  could 
be  profitably  drained  through  organized  effort. 

A  drainage  engineer  in  this  county  stated  that  better  drainage  is  the 
principal  need  from  an  agricultural  standpoint,  and  that  with  reasonable 
business  conditions  the  work  to  be  done  in  the  next  ten  years  far  exceeds 
that  already  done.  According  to  this  same  authority,  two  wet  areas  of 
about  3,500  acres  each  in  Reading  Township  are  badly  in  need  of  drainage. 

The  county  superintendent  of  highways  advises  that  at  least  ten  areas  of 
about  2,000  acres  each  should  be  drained. 

The  county  farm  advisor  states  that  a  large  amount  of  land  in  the  county 
is  somewhat  in  need  of  drainage  and  would  be  materially  improved  by  better 
outlets. 

From  the  above  statements  it  is  safe  to  predict  that  considerably  more 
drainage  work  will  be  done  in  this  county  within  the  next  few  years. 

There  is  a  strong  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  simplification  of  the  drain- 
age laws.  Rather  than  organize  under  the  law,  a  large  amount  of  drainage 
has  been  done  through  mutual  districts.  While  objections  to  the  drainage 
law  in  every  county  were  investigated,  there  was  an  unusual  amount  of 
comment  voiced  in  Livingston  County. 


CHAPTER  XI— MACKINAW  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Mackinaw  watershed  comprises  1,120  square  miles  of  territory  sit- 
uated in  Ford,  McLean,  Livingston,  Woodford,  Tazewell,  and  Mason 
counties. 

The  principal  tributaries  of  Mackinaw  River  are  Henline  Creek,  Panther 
Creek,  and  Money  Creek. 

There  is  no  serious  overflow  along  Mackinaw  River.  In  McLean  County 
the  bottoms  are  rarely  over  one-fourth  of  a  mile  in  width,  but  in  Tazewell 
County  they  vary  from  one  to  two  miles.  However,  most  of  it  is  second 
bottom  which  is  overflowed  only  by  the  higher  spring  floods.  The  Tazewell 
County  Farm  advisor  states  that  it  is  very  seldom  indeed  that  corn  crops 
are  lost  on  this  land ;  hence  no  overflow  is  shown  on  the  map  for  this  river. 
The  drainage  data  for  this  watershed  are  given  in  Table  12. 

Table  12. — Drainage  data  for  the  Mackinaw  River  zvatershed 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


Organized  drainage  districts 


Acres 

1 

Sullivant 

Ford 
McLean-Ford 

2,120 

2 

Mackinaw 

5,460 

3 

Lawndale  and  Cropsev 

McLean-Ford 

11,020 

4 

Chenoa 

McLean-Livingston 

11,740 

5 

Gridley  No.  1 

McLean 

7,680 

6 

Panther  Creek 

M  c  Lean- Livingston- 

Woodford 

11,400 

7 

Normal  and  Towanda 

McLean 

1,810 

8 

Union  No.  1,  Sand  Prairie  and  Cincinnati. . 

Tazewell 

1,580 

9 

Sand  Prairie  No.  1 

Tazewell 

2,100 

10 

Hickory  Grove 

Tazewell-Mason 

8,120 

11 

Spring  Lake  No.  1  (Parkland) 

Tazewell 

1,190 

12 

Union  No.  1,  Cincinnati  and  Spring  Lake 

Total . ; 

Tazewell 

2,160 

66,380 

Upland  areas  needing  drainage 

13 

14 

Lexington-La  wndalea 

Area  in  Green  Township 

Total 

McLean 
Woodford 

2,460 
7,000 

9,460 

aFailed  to  organize. 


The  soil  is  for  the  most  part  a  brown  silt  loam,  spotted  with  small  areas 
of  black  clay  loam  which  need  drainage  as  the  first  requisite  to  good  pro- 


88  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

duction.  The  soil  responds  well  to  tile  drainage  and  a  large  amount  of  pri- 
vate work  has  been  done.  The  drains  have  their  outlets  in  numerous  small 
shallow  streams.  Organized  drainage  is  needed  mainly  to  open  up  these 
shallow  channels  to  provide  more  adequate  outlets,  and  all  the  districts  which 
have  been  formed  are  along  the  creeks,  which  have  been  dredged  to  provide 
better  outlets. 

At  the  upper  end  of  the  watershed  in  Ford  County,  the  Sullivant  Town- 
ship District,  2,120  acres,  was  organized  in  1907. 

The  Mackinaw  District,  5,460  acres,  was  organized  in  1913  but  con- 
struction work  was  held  up  for  five  years  because  of  litigation  which  was  at 
last  decided  in  favor  of  the  district  by  the  Supreme  Court.  Its  plans  are  to 
dredge  the  channel  of  Mackinaw  River  for  a  distance  of  about  eleven  miles 
at  its  upper  end.  A  part  of  this  district  is  in  Ford  County.  The  commis- 
sioners state  that  there  are  some  adjoining  areas  which  should  be  annexed. 

The  Lawndale  and  Cropsey  District  contains  11,020  acres  along  Henline 
Creek,  which  has  been  dredged  for  about  18  miles.  The  district  was  com- 
pleted in  1910  and  is  quite  successful  as  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  com- 
missioners place  a  value  of  $400  an  acre  on  the  land.  The  eastern  three 
miles  of  this  district  are  in  Ford  County. 

The  Chenoa  District  contains  11,740  acres  in  McLean  and  Livingston 
counties.   It  was  organized  in  1918,  but  is  not  yet  constructed. 

In  Gridley  Township,  District  No.  1  drains  7,680  acres  along  the  creek 
which  has  its  source  in  the  northern  part  of  that  township. 

North  of  the  above  area,  the  Panther  Creek  District  is  just  starting 
construction  work.  Its  organization  was  confirmed  in  1915,  but  the  objectors 
held  up  the  work  for  about  five  years.  It  contains  11,400  acres  along  the 
East  Fork  of  Panther  Creek  in  Livingston,  McLean,  and  Woodford  coun- 
ties. One  of  the  commissioners  states  that  after  the  completion  of  the 
district  the  land  will  be  worth  $500  an  acre. 

North  of  Normal,  at  the  upper  end  of  Sixmile  Creek,  the  Normal  and 
Towanda  District  provides  drainage  for  1810  acres. 

In  the  extreme  western  portion  of  the  watershed,  five  districts  have 
been  constructed  in  the  Mackinaw  River  bottoms.  Four  of  these  districts 
are  small,  ranging  in  size  from  1200  to  2100  acres.  The  fifth,  or  Hickory 
Grove  District,  contains  8120  acres,  partly  in  Tazewell  and  partly  in  Mason 
County. 

In  all,  twelve  districts  are  shown  for  the  Mackinaw  watershed  with  a 
total  area  of  66,380  acres.  There  may  be  a  number  of  small  mutual  tile- 
districts  which  are  not  indicated.  A  large  amount  of  drainage  has  been 
done,  but  whether  this  was  all  private  drainage  or  whether  it  was  accom- 
plished through  mutual  effort  was  impossible  to  determine. 

No  new  districts  are  being  promoted  in  this  watershed. 

South  of  Lexington  is  an  area,  shown  in  green  on  the  map,  representing 


MACKINAW   RIVER    WATERSHED  89 

the  land  included  in  the  Lexington-Lawndale  District  which  failed  to  or- 
ganize due  to  error  by  Court  which  caused  loss  of  jurisdiction.  There  are 
2460  acres  in  this  tract,  the  owners  of  which  will  probably  make  a  second 
attempt  to  organize. 

The  topography  of  the  southern  part  of  Woodford  County  is  rolling 
to  broken  and  has  good  natural  drainage,  but  Greene  and  Panola  townships 
at  the  upper  end  of  the  Mackinaw  watershed  have  much  natter  land.  Con- 
siderable tiling  has  been  done  here  and  many  owners  are  satisfied.  However, 
some  difficulty  is  developing  because  main  tile  lines  are  found  to  be  too  small 
for  desired  extensions.  In  all  probability,  districts  may  be  formed  to  remedy 
this  difficulty,  although  it  can  not  be  said  that  the  lands  are  wet,  unpro- 
ductive, or  even  seriously  handicapped  by  poor  drainage.  The  area  shown 
in  green  in  Greene  Township  is  one  which  will  be  benefited  by  combined 
drainage  and  where  there  is  some  sentiment  toward  organization. 


CHAPTER  XII— ILLINOIS  RIVER  WATERSHED 

Illinois  River  is  the  largest  and  most  important  stream  within  the  State, 
draining  as  it  does  almost  one-half  of  the  entire  area  of  the  State,  as  well 
as  small  portions  of  Indiana  and  Wisconsin.  Illinois  River  proper  has  its 
source  at  the  confluence  of  Kankakee  and  Desplaines  rivers,  near  the  east 
line  of  Grundy  County;  and  in  this  report  the  Illinois  River  watershed  is 
considered  as  commencing  at  that  place. 

The  larger  tributaries  of  the  Illinois  are  Fox,  Vermilion,  Mackinaw, 
Spoon,  and  Sangamon  rivers,  and  Crooked  and  Macoupin  creeks.  The  water- 
shed of  each  of  these  streams  is  treated  under  a  separate  chapter  in  this 
report. 

Illinois  River  watershed,  as  outlined  on  the  accompanying  map,  contains 
6,940  square  miles. 

For  a  distance  of  63  miles  below  its  head,  the  Illinois  flows  westward. 
At  this  point,  known  as  the  "Great  Bend,"  the  river  makes  a  right-angle  turn 
and  flows  southward.  Here  a  marked  change  takes  place  in  the  character- 
istics of  the  valley.  The  upper  portion  is  rather  uniformly  about  one  and 
one-half  miles  wide,  and  is  bordered  with  rocky  bluffs  except  around  Morris, 
where  there  is  a  flat  basin.  Near  Seneca  the  valley  narrows  to  about  one- 
quarter  of  a  mile.  The  total  fall  in  the  63  miles  is  about  50  feet,  or  an  average 
of  0.8  foot  per  mile.  However,  most  of  the  fall  occurs  at  the  Marseilles 
dam,  and  the  Starved  Rock  rapids.  The  bottom  lands  above  La  Salle  are 
for  the  most  part  comparatively  high  and  have  a  gradual  upward  slope  to  the 
bluffs.  The  duration  of  floods  in  this  part  of  the  valley  is  short  and  no  levees 
have  been  constructed  to  protect  the  lowlands. 

In  the  lower  valley,  below  the  bend,  the  rocky  bluffs  disappear  and  the 
flood  plain  widens  to  from  two  to  six  miles.  The  length  of  this  portion 
is  about  215  miles  and  the  fall  of  the  river  only  about  25  feet,  which  makes 
an  average  fall  per  mile  of  only  1.4  inches.  There  are  four  dams  across  the 
river  in  the  lower  valley.  The  Henry  dam  and  lock  was  constructed 
under  authority  of  an  act  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1867  for  the  pur- 
pose of  aiding  navigation.  It  was  completed  in  1871,  and  its  crest  is 
6.5  feet  above  the  low  water  of  1871.  The  Copperas  Creek  dam,  between 
Pekin  and  Havana,  was  also  authorized  by  the  Legislature  in  1873  for 
the  same  purpose.  It  was  completed  in  1877,  and  its  crest  is  6.25  feet 
above  the  low  water  of  1873.  The  La  Grange  dam  and  lock,  below  Beards- 
town,  was  constructed  by  the  Federal  Government  in  1890  with  its  crest 
7.4  feet  above  the  low  water  of  1879.  The  Kampsville  dam  and  lock  was  also 
constructed  by  the  Government  in  1893  and  is  7.7  feet  above  the  low  water 
of  1879.  The  crest  of  this  dam  was  lowered  two  feet  by  the  Chicago  San- 
itary District  in  1904-6  to  relieve  the  overflowed  lands  somewhat.   Work  of 


ILLINOIS   RIVER    WATERSHED  91 

a  similar  nature  was  begun  on  the  La  Grange  dam  in  1907,  but  was  aban- 
doned. 

From  the  standpoint  of  drainage  and  overflow  these  dams  are  objection- 
able and  various  organizations  interested  in  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom 
lands  have  attempted  many  times  to  secure  their  removal.  The  Sanitary 
District  of  Chicago  has  several  times  attempted  to  remove  the  state  dams 
at  Henry  and  Copperas  Creek.  In  fact,  Section  23  of  the  Act  providing  for 
the  organization  of  sanitary  districts  and  for  the  removal  of  obstacles  in 

Desplaines  and  Illinois  rivers,  states  that  "the  district shall  remove 

the  dams  at  Henry  and  Copperas  creeks  in  the  Illinois  River  before  any  water 

shall  be  turned  into  said  channel ".    The  Supreme  Court  has  held 

that  the  dams  could  not  be  removed  until  an  equivalent  navigable  depth  is 
available  without  the  aid  of  the  dams.  In  its  1914  Report,  the  Rivers  and 
Lakes  Commission  recommended  that  the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  re- 
move the  two  state  dams  and  the  Federal  Government  the  La  Grange  and 
Kampsville  dams,  subject  to  the  provision  that  the  river  be  dredged  to  insure 
a  minimum  depth  of  seven  feet. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  State  Division  of  Waterways  that  the  removal 
of  these  dams  would  make  the  navigation  of  the  river  impossible  during 
periods  of  low  water,  if  the  present  flow  of  the  Sanitary  District's  canal 
from  Lake  Michigan  should  be  curtailed. 

At  one  time  all  of  the  bottom  land  in  the  lower  valley  was  subject  to 
overflow.  The  soil  is  very  fertile  and  the  occasional  crops  which  were  saved 
from  the  floods  were  so  abundant  that  the  incentive  to  protect  the  land  from 
overflow  was  great.  The  result  has  been  the  reclamation  of  most  of  the  bot- 
tom land. 

Up  to  the  present  time,  322,260  acres  have  been  reclaimed  through 
the  organization  of  68  districts,  of  which  45  are  located  in  the  former  flood 
plain  of  the  river.  There  remain  some  115,000  acres  still  subject  to  over- 
flow.  All  of  this  area  is  below  Ottawa. 

The  southeastern  half  of  Kendall  County  drains  into  the  Illinois  through 
Aux  Sable  Creek  and  its  numerous  tributaries.  There  are  no  organized 
districts  in  this  area  and  no  need  for  them,  as  the  natural  drainage  is  good. 

All  of  Grundy  County  is  in  the  Illinois  watershed,  and  most  of  it  is  a 
broad  low  plain  centering  around  Morris.  The  river  here  has  no  well- 
marked  banks  such  as  are  found  further  downstream. 

In  1896,  about  4,500  acres  in  Felix  Township,  Grundy  County,  was  or- 
ganized into  the  Claypool  Drainage  and  Levee  District.  The  drainage  afforded 
the  lands  was  inadequate  due  to  the  large  area,  outside  the  district,  which 
drained  through  it.  In  1916,  this  outside  land  was  annexed  making  the  total 
area  13,600  acres.  War  conditions  delayed  the  carrying  out  of  the  new  plans 
and  the  work  is  not  yet  completed.  The  plans  are  comprehensive  and  will 
give  thorough  drainage  to  all  the  lands  at  an  average  cost  of  about  $19  an 


92 


LAND  DRAINAGE  IN  ILLINOIS 


Table  10. — Dramatic  data  for  the  Kankakee  River  watershed — continued 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 


Union  No.  2,  Momence  and  Ganeer 

Payne-Melby 

Snake    Creek 

Spring  Creek 

North   Wichert 

Claussen  Park 

Little   Beaver   Special 

Hopkins 

Beaver  No.  3 

Big  Beaver  Drainage  and  Levee 

Beaver  No.  1 

Beaver  No.  2 

Blackson 

Martinton   No  2 

Middleport  No.   1 

Iroquois  No.   1    

Union  No.  1,  Martinton  and  Iroquois 

Martinton  No.  3 

Papineau  No.  3 

Union  No.  1,  Papineau  and  Martinton 

Martinton  No.  4 

Ashkum   No.    1 

Union  No.  2,  Danf orth  and  Ashkum 

Ashkum  Mutual   No   1 

Milks  Grove  Special 

Union  No.  1,  Ashkum  and  Danforth 

Lahogue   

Danforth  No  3 

Onarga,  Douglas,  and  Danforth  Special  No  1 . 

Union  No.  1,  Onarga  and  Ridgeland 

Union  No.  2,  Onarga  and  Ridgeland 

Onarga  No.  3 

Onarga  No.  2 

Union  No.   1,  Iroquois  and  Crescent 

Crescent   No.  2 

Crescent   No.    1 

Union  No.  2,  Crescent  and  Iroquois 

Eastburn    No.    2 

North  Sheldon  and  South  Concord 

Sheldon  No.  1 

Sheldon   Mutual 

Possum  Trot  No.  1 

Eastburn   No.    1 

Eastburn    No.   3 

Belmont   No.    1 

Ash  Grove   No.    1 

Onarga    No    4 

Onarga  No.  5 

Artesia   Mutual   No.   1 

Artesia   Mutual   No.  2 

Union  No.  3,  Artesia  and  Ridgeland 

Union  No.  1,  Artesia  and  Ridgeland 

Union  No.  2,  Artesia  and  Ridgeland 

Harmonv 


Acres 

Kankakee 

2,320 

Kankakee 

1,050 

Kankakee 

2,300 

Kankakee 

7,040 

Kankakee 

1,400 

Kankakee 

3,200 

Kankakee-Iroquois 

13,920 

Kankakee 

12,320 

Iroquois 

5,400 

Iroquois 

9,120 

Iroquois 

4,640 

Iroquois 

4,790 

Iroquois 

5,020 

Iroquois 

13,820 

Iroquois 

7,880 

Iroquois 

2,460 

Iroquois 

6,320 

Iroquois 

19,820 

Iroquois 

3,380 

Iroquois 

4,400 

Iroquois 

3,040 

Iroquois 

1,120 

Iroquois 

17,340 

Iroquois 

1,580 

Iroquois 

9.200 

Iroquois 

20.880 

Iroquois 

13,160 

Iroquois 

9,910 

Iroquois 

15.680 

Iroquois 

3.800 

Iroquois 

810 

Iroquois 

610 

Iroquois 

1,760 

Iroquois 

5,140 

Iroquois 

1,640 

Iroquois 

5.400 

Iroquois 

2.440 

Iroquois 

1,370 

Iroquois 

5.460 

Iroquois 

760 

Iroquois 

190 

Iroquois 

11.040 

Iroquois 

3.480 

Iroquois 

1.300 

Iroquois 

700 

Iroquois 

6.620 

Iroquois 

2.590 

Iroquois 

1.300 

Iroquois 

900 

Iroquois 

260 

Iroquois 

4.720 

[roquois 

800 

[roquois 

800 

Ford 

920 

KANKAKEE   RIVER    WATERSHED 


93 


Table  10. — Drainage  data  for  the  Kankakee  River  watershed — concluded 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 


Union   No.   1,   Lyman  and  Wall 

Artesia  No.  4 

Pond  Lily 

Mud  Creek 

Whiskey  Creek 

Fountain  Creek  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Fountain  Creek  and  Pidgeon  Grove 

Special    Mutual 

Rankin 

Reilly.... 

Union  No.  1,  Butler  and  Fountain  Creek 


Total 


Ford 

Iroquois 

Iroquois 

Iroquois 

Iroquois 

Iroquois-Vermilion 

Iroquois 

Ford 

Vermilion 

Vermilion 

Vermilion-Iroquois 


Acres 

5,640 

6,820 

9,350 

480 

6,240 

5,500 

1,120 

1,440 

960 

900 

2,720 


442,950 


Districts  being  organized 


117 
118 


Black  Walnut  Creek. 
(Not  named) 


Total 


Will -Kankakee 
Vermilion-Ford 


5,740 
1,620 


7,360 


Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 


Area  in  old  Canavan  District 

Southeast  corner  of  Rockwell  Township 

Custer  and   Reed  townships 

Salina  and  Limestone  townships 

Area  in  North  Limestone  District 

Gar  Creek  District  extension 

Area  along   Coon   Creek 

Area  west  of  Fountain  Creek  District 

Area  surrounding  Union  No.  1,  Butler  and 
Fountain    Grove 


Total 


Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Kankakee 

Iroquois 

Iroquois-Vermilion 

Vermilion-Iroquois 


3,400 
1,000 
3,680 
8,100 
2,370 
6,000 
7,080 
11,680 

18,000 


61,310 


Momence  the  valley  is  entirely  different.  Although  the  country  here  is  flat 
also,  there  are  no  swamps  of  any  magnitude,  and  the  banks  of  the  river  are 
high  enough  to  prevent  overflow,  except  in  extreme  floods. 

Because  of  the  large  amount  of  Indiana  swamp  land  involved,  the  State 
of  Indiana  has  given  some  assistance  in  remedying  the  situation.  In  1889 
its  legislature  made  an  appropriation  of  $40,000,  and  in  1891  an  additional 
sum  of  $25,000  was  given.  With  this  money  the  channel  of  the  river  at 
Momence  was  widened  to  300  feet  and  was  deepened  2y2  feet  for  a  distance 
of  8,650  feet,  the  work  being  completed  in  1893.     Since  then  the  drainage 


94 


LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  13. — Drainage  data  for  the  Illinois  River  zvatershed — Concluded 


Refer- 

ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

88 

Along  Illinois  River,  (northeast  of  Peoria) 

Tazewell 

Acres 
2,200 

89 

Along  Kickapoo  Creek 

Peoria 

2,500 

90 

Along  Illinois  River,  (south  of  Peoria) 

Peoria 

3,300 

91 

Along  Illinois  River,  (north  of  Pekin) 

Tazewell 

1,300 

92 

Along  Illinois  River,  (south  of  Pekin  and  LaMarsh) 

Peoria 

1,600 

93 

Along  Illinois  River,  (north  of  Bluff  City) 

Fulton 

3,000 

94 

Along  Illinois  River,  Mason  County 

Mason 

14,100 

95 

Along  Illinois  River,  (north  of  Beardstown) 

Cass 

13,000 

96 

Along  Illinois  River,  (west  of  Meredosia  Lake) 

Cass-Morgan 

4,200 

97 

Along  Illinois  River  (between  Meredosia  and  Naples) 

Morgan-Scott 

3,500 

98 

Along  Illinois  River,  (south  of  Nutwood) 

Jersey 

6,000 

99 

Between  Illinois  and  Mississippi  Rivers 

Calhoun 

25,000 

Total 

115,210 

Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


100 
101 

Area  east  of  Morris 

Northeast  of  Marseilles 

Grundy 

La  Salle 

La  Salle 

Marshall 

Woodford-Mar- 
shall 

Woodford-Mar- 
shall 

4,500 
1,000 
4,400 
2,400 

102 

South  of  Marseilles 

103 
104 

South  of  Broadmoor 

South  of  Belle  Plain 

105 

West  of  Minonk 

4,500 

Total 

6,500 

23,300 

About  three  miles  south  of  Morris,  the  Dingman  Drainage  District  has 
given  better  drainage  to  2,200  acres.  Only  80  acres  of  this  was  useless,  the 
rest  having  some  drainage  through  private  work.  The  district  connected  up 
this  private  work  and  provided  adequate  outlets  through  its  four  miles  of 
ditches  and  one  mile  of  large  tile  drain.  The  organization  was  effected  in  1914 
and  the  construction  work  completed  the  following  year.  The  commissioners 
give  the  former  value  of  the  land  as  $200  an  acre,  and  the  present  value 
as  $300. 

About  1,500  acres  to  the  northeast  of  the  Dingman  District  is  now  being 
formed  into  the  Southard  District ;  and  two  miles  to  the  east,  the  Winterbot- 
tom  District  is  in  process  of  organization.  This  tract  is  composed  of  3,200 
acres  and  abuts  the  Claypool  District  on  the  northwest. 

This  is  the  extent  of  the  organized  drainage  which  has  been  and  is  being 
done  in  Grundy  County.  There  is  considerable  opportunity  for  more  drain- 
age in  this  area.  The  land  between  Kankakee  and  Illinois  rivers  is  all  in 
need  of  better  drainage,  and  some  4,500  acres  of  the  wettest  land  is  shown 
on  the  map.    On  the  south  side  of  the  river,  the  land  is  low  for  a  distance 


ILLINOIS   RIVER   WATERSHED  95 

of  about  five  miles  on  each  side  of  Morris,  and  is  subject  to  occasional  over- 
flow. However,  from  the  information  obtained,  it  is  a  question  as  to  whether 
the  damage  to  crops  warrants  the  construction  of  levees.  The  overflow 
periods  in  this  part  of  the  valley  are  of  much  shorter  duration  than  those  in 
the  lower  valley. 

About  three  townships  along  the  western  side  of  Kankakee  County 
drain  into  the  Illinois.  In  the  northen  part  of  this  area,  in  Essex  Township, 
is  a  tract  of  wet  land  containing  9,300  acres  which  is  now  being  organized 
into  the  Granary  Creek  Drainage  District. 

The  northeast  quarter  of  Livingston  County  is  in  the  Illinois  watershed. 
The  topography  is  flat  and  the  soil  is  a  brown  silt  loam,  spotted  with  areas 
of  black  clay  loam.  Much  of  the  area  is  underlain  with  a  tight  clay  subsoil, 
and  needs  artificial  drainage.  However,  very  little  has  been  done  and  only 
one  small  district  of  800  acres  has  been  constructed.  This  is  the  Odell  and 
Nevada  District,  northeast  of  Odell.  A  new  district  is  in  the  petition  stage 
in  Union  Township.  Here  4,490  acres  along  Brewsters'  Sluice  are  proposed 
for  the  Loretto  District.  This  portion  of  the  county  is  a  fertile  field  for  drain- 
age development  and  without  doubt  many  districts  will  eventually  cover  this 
area. 

In  La  Salle  County,  east  of  Ottawa,  no  districts  have  been  formed.  A 
large  amount  of  private  tilling  has  been  done  and  the  area  is  well  taken  care 
of  in  this  respect,  except  for  a  tract  of  some  4,400  acres  located  about  ten 
miles  south  of  Marseilles  at  the  headwaters  of  the  several  small  streams  which 
drain  this  territory.  The  land  is  now  raising  good  crops,  but  better  drainage 
would  be  profitable.  A  second  area  of  about  1,000  acres  which  would  be 
improved  by  drainage  is  situated  about  five  miles  northeast  of  Marseilles. 

The  northern  portion  of  La  Salle  County  is  intersected  with  many  small 
streams  which  provide  outlets  for  private  drainage,  a  large  amount  of  which 
has  been  done.  Along  the  divide  between  the  Little  Vermilion  River  and 
Indian  Creek  four  drainage  districts  have  been  formed.  These  are  Union 
No.  1  of  Wallace  and  Waltham,  7,000  acres;  Ophir  No.  1,  5,240  acres; 
Ophir  No.  2,  1,460  acres;  and  Meriden  No.  1,  2,560  acres.  The  boundaries 
of  the  first  mentioned  district  are  only  approximate.  All  of  these  were  organ- 
ized under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  and  some  of  the  township  records  could 
not  be  found. 

In  the  southwestern  corner  of  La  Salle  County  the  Lostant  District  is 
being  promoted.   The  proposed  boundaries  include  4,400  acres. 

Below  Ottawa  the  Illinois  River  bottoms  are  subject  to  overflow.  The 
river  winds  through  the  flood  plain  which  averages  about  one  mile  in  width 
as  far  down  as  the  great  bend.  Here  the  flood  plain  broadens  to  a  width  of 
about  two  miles  and  is  all  on  the  west  side  of  the  river  as  far  south  as  the 
Putnam-Marshall  county  line.  This  stretch  of  bottoms  consists  of  approxi- 
mately 21,500  acres  of  overflow  land. 


96  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

The  water  of  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  has  damaged  thousands  of 
acres  which  were  formerly  under  cultivation.  Mr.  L.  E.  Cooley,  in  his  1914 
report  on  the  "Physical  Relations  and  the  Removal  of  the  Navigation  Dams," 
gives  the  following  data  concerning  the  damage  claims  against  the  Sanitary 
District  which  were  under  adjudication  as  of  December  31,  1912: 


Location 

Number   Amount 

La  Salle  County 

32 

$    660,500 

Bureau  County 

18 

354,100 

Putnam  County 

38 

515,500 

Marshall  County 

36 

601,300 

Woodford  County 

8 

104,900 

Peoria  County 

14 

149,500 

Tazewell  County 

13 

411,000 

Fulton  County 

9 

112,500 

Havana  to  La  Grange 

110 

1,151,680 

La  Grange  to  mouth  of  river 

6 

479,000 

Total 

284 

$4,539,980 

The  additional  claims  preferred  but  not  entered  of  suit  at  that  date  will 
raise  the  above  total  to  about  $8,000,000.  At  that  time  only  $126,823  had 
been  paid  in  damage  claims. 

A  considerable  amount  of  resentment  against  the  Sanitary  District  was 
expressed  by  various  individuals  who  were  consulted  during  this  investigation 
of  drainage  conditions. 

Only  one  drainage  district  has  been  organized  in  Bureau  County  within 
the  Illinois  watershed.  This  is  the  Union  District  No.  1  of  Wyanet  and 
Concord  townships,  locally  known  as  the  Pond  Creek  District.  It  contains 
1,280  acres  between  the  Rock  Island  Railroad  and  the  Illinois  and  Mississippi 
Canal,  just  west  of  Wyanet. 

Organized  drainage  is  little  needed  in  this  part  of  Bureau  County.  The 
only  drainage  problem  is  in  the  Illinois  River  bottoms.  There  is  some  talk 
of  organizing  a  district  at  the  mouth  of  Bureau  Creek,  but  no  definite  steps 
have  been  taken. 

South  of  Hennepin  a  pocket  of  bottom  land  on  the  east  of  the  river  has 
been  reclaimed  through  the  organization  of  the  Hennepin  Levee  and  Drainage 
District.  There  are  2,610  acres  in  this  tract.  The  district  was  organized  in 
1909  and  completed  its  five  and  one-half  miles  of  levee  and  seven  miles  of 
ditches  in  1914.  The  land-owners  are  satisfied  with  the  results  of  the  under- 
taking, though  the  district  was  overflowed  in  1914  and  1916.  The  Commis- 
sioners blame  their  troubles  upon  the  Sanitary  District.  The  land  has  in- 
creased from  $15  an  acre  in  1909  to  $100  an  acre  in  1919. 

About  three  miles  below  the  above  district  the  river  crosses  to  the  west 
side  of  the  flood  plain  and  leaves  an  area  about  one  mile  wide  and  six  miles 
long  on  the  east  side  which  is  a  feasible  levee  project.     This  tract  of  4,200 


ILLINOIS    RIVER    WATERSHED  97 

acres,  is  about  equally  divided  between  Putnam  and  Marshall  counties. 
Sandy  Creek,  which  drains  a  large  upland  area,  flows  through  the  center  of 
the  area  and  enters  the  Illinois  opposite  Henry.  This  fact  may  make  it 
necessary  to  organize  two  districts  here  instead  of  one.  Within  this  area 
are  two  lakes,  namely,  Saw  Mill  and  Bilsbach.  It  is  a  question  as  to  whether 
the  former  lake  could  be  drained ;  but,  if  not,  it  could  be  made  into  a  valuable 
fish  and  bird  preserve,  as  well  as  a  reservoir  for  the  rain  water  during  flood 
periods. 

Back  from  the  river  in  Putnam  County,  the  land  is  more  or  less  rolling 
and  possesses  good  natural  drainage.  Across  the  river  from  Lacon,  the 
Sparland  District  has  almost  completed  its  organization,  and  will  include 
1,570  acres  within  its  boundaries.  To  the  north  along  Crow  Creek,  are 
about  1,300  acres  which,  while  not  in  the  bottoms,  are  overflowed  by  the 
waters  of  the  creek.  There  is  some  talk  of  forming  a  district  here  for 
improving  the  channel.  To  the  south  of  the  Sparland  District  is  a  small 
tract  of  850  acres  of  bottom  land,  which  might  be  reclaimed.  This  area 
would  probably  have  been  included  in  the  Sparland  District  had  it  not  been 
for  the  embankment  of  the  highway  between  Lacon  and  Sparland  which 
serves  as  a  levee  on  the  south. 

In  the  northwest  corner  of  Marshall  County  a  wet  area  is  shown  on 
the  map  This  is  the  area  around  Saratoga  Lake  which  it  is  proposed  to 
drain. 

The  topography  of  the  upland  prairies  on  both  sides  of  the  river  is 
rolling  to  broken,  and  the  need  of  artificial  drainage  is  small. 

South  of  Lacon,  on  the  east  side  of  the  river,  the  bottoms  are  a  mile 
or  more  in  width,  and  for  a  distance  of  about  five  miles  nothing  has  been 
done  to  reclaim  them.     There  are  about  2,460  acres  in  this  tract. 

Directly  to  the  south,  the  Crow  Creek  Drainage  District  was  organized 
in  1912  and  completed  in  1914.  It  extends  from  the  river  up  Crow  Creek 
for  about  three  miles,  and  includes  990  acres.  The  creek  was  dredged  to 
provide  a  better  outlet  for  the  tile  drains.  The  value  of  the  land  has  increased 
from  $40  an  acre  to  about  $150,  and  the  landowners  are  satisfied  with  the 
results  of  the  project.  No  levees  have  been  built  and  the  district  is  subject 
to  the  backwater  from  the  river.  About  1,000  acres  up  the  creek  might  be 
annexed. 

The  sentiment  for  drainage  is  not  very  favorable  in  Marshall  County. 
The  bottom  land  for  the  most  part  is  owned  by  wealthy  people,  who  do  not 
need  the  income  from  the  land,  and  who  prefer  to  use  it  for  hunting  purposes. 

In  the  northwest  corner  of  Woodford  County  is  located  the  Partridge 
Drainage  and  Levee  District,  which  contains  5,500  acres.  It  was  organized 
in  1906,  but  is  not  yet  completed,  due  to  lack  of  funds.  The  plans  call  for 
seven  miles  of  levee  and  six  miles  of  ditches.  Thus  far  the  district  is  prac- 
tically a  failure.     The  present  value  of  the  land  is  only  about  $25  an  acre. 


98  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

The  Rome  View  Levee  and  Drainage  District,  5,000  acres,  includes  all 
the  bottom  land  remaining  on  the  east  side.  It  was  organized  in  1915,  but 
has  delayed  construction  due  to  high  prices.  The  plans  are  to  construct 
eight  miles  of  levee  and  eight  miles  of  ditches.  The  commissioners  state 
that  the  area  to  the  north  in  the  Partridge  District  should  be  included  in 
their  district,  since  the  former  district  has  been  practically  abandoned,  so 
far  as  constructive  action  is  concerned.  Drainage  sentiment  in  the  Rome 
View  District  is  very  favorable  and  without  doubt  it  will  be  completed 
successfully. 

Below  Partridge  Creek  the  valley  narrows  and  there  is  no  overflow  for 
about  four  miles.  From  this  point  to  Peoria  there  is  a  strip  of  flooded  land 
about  one  mile  in  width.  In  the  middle  of  this  strip,  330  acres  have  been 
incorporated  in  the  Ten  Mile  Drainage  and  Levee  District  which  was  organ- 
ized in  1917  in  Tazewell  County.  The  district  is  leveed  on  three  sides  and 
has  three  miles  of  ditches  and  three  miles  of  large  tile.  The  undertaking 
has  not  been  a  success  according  to  the  commissioners.  About  one-half  the 
land  is  not  useful  and  the  area  is  subject  to  overflow,  the  last  inundation 
occurring  in  1919.  The  commissioners  lay  their  troubles  largely  to  the 
waters  of  the  Sanitary  District,  and  feel  rather  bitter  toward  that  organization. 

The  overflowed  area  to  the  north  of  the  above  district  contains  about 
3,000  acres  and  that  to  the  south  approximately  2,200  acres.  Both  of  these 
are  feasible  drainage  projects. 

In  the  northeast  corner  of  Peoria  County  is  a  small  pocket  of  overflow 
land  containing  about  1,200  acres.  Whether  or  not  this  area  can  be  profit- 
ably reclaimed  is  a  question  which  will  require  careful  engineering  study. 

Several  miles  south  of  Chillicothe  the  Halleck  and  Medina  District  is 
located.  It  includes  2,800  acres,  and  is  about  two  miles  from  the  river.  It 
is  giving  satisfaction. 

In  the  northeast  part  of  Woodford  County  are  two  wet  areas  which 
would  be  greatly  benefited  by  the  formation  of  districts.  These  areas  are 
numbered  104  and  105  on  the  map.  The  former  contains  about  4,500  acres 
and  the  latter  6,500  acres. 

In  the  pocket  formed  by  the  railroad  embankment  at  East  Peoria,  the 
East  Peoria  Drainage  and  Levee  District  was  organized  in  1910  and  com- 
pleted the  following  year.  One  and  three-quarters  miles  of  levee  successfully 
protect  the  area  from  overflow  and  three  miles  of  ditches  convey  the  rain, 
hill,  and  seepage  water  to  the  pumps.  The  district  is  composed  of  720 
acres  and  the  land  is  valued  at  $700  an  acre.  Here  again  the  Sanitarv 
District  was  mentioned,  and  though  this  district  has  never  been  overflowed, 
the  commissioners  stated  that  the  high  levees  required  to  protect  the  bottom 
land,  on  account  of  the  increased  flow,  is  holding  back  the  reclamation  of 
adjoining  areas. 

On  the  east  edge  of  East  Peoria  the  Urbandale  Levee  and   Drainage 


ILLINOIS    RIVER    WATERSHED  99 

District,  containing  only  100  acres,  was  organized  for  protecting  the  land 
from  the  overflow  of  Farm  Creek. 

West  of  Peoria  is  another  small  district  of  300  acres.  It  is  the  Horse- 
shoe Bottoms  Mutual  District. 

There  is  some  overflow  along  Kickapoo  Creek,  extending  from  Peoria 
as  far  north  as  Jubilee.  It  is  only  about  one-quarter  of  a  mile  wide  and 
contains  in  all  about  2,500  acres. 

Between  Peoria  and  Pekin  there  is  overflow  on  both  sides  of  the  river. 
The  area  on  the  west  is  shown  on  the  map  as  number  90.  About  one-half 
mile  south  of  the  north  end  of  this  area  an  industrial  canal  leads  from  the 
river  to  the  plant  of  the  Keystone  Steel  and  Wire  Company.  Since  the 
map  was  prepared,  information  has  been  obtained  that  the  area  south  of  the 
canal  is  being  organized  into  the  Tuscarora  Drainage  and  Levee  District.  It 
is  also  quite  likely  that  the  area  north  of  the  canal  will  soon  be  reclaimed 
for  industrial  purposes. 

On  the  east  of  the  river,  the  overflowed  area  is  quite  narrow  and  con- 
tains only  about  1,300  acres.  It  is  doubtful  if  it  is  practicable  to  reclaim 
this  area. 

Opposite  Pekin,  2,300  acres  of  bottom  land  is  embraced  in  the  Pekin 
and  La  Marsh  Levee  and  Drainage  District,  which  was  organized  in  1889, 
and  finally  completed  in  1902.  This  has  been  a  very  successful  district, 
though  the  levee  has  been  broken  twice  and  the  district  flooded.  The  com- 
missioners attribute  these  breaks  "to  the  surplus  water  turned  in  by  the 
Chicago  Sanitary  District  when  the  river  is  at  its  highest  stage."  The 
commissioners  gave  the  value  of  the  land  at  $175  an  acre,  which  according 
to  others  consulted  is  a  very  low  valuation.  Adjoining  this  district  on  the 
south  is  a  tract  of  some  1,600  acres  which  might  be  reclaimed  though  it 
would  be  rather  expensive  on  account  of  the  comparatively  long  levee  which 
would  be  necessary. 

The  Rocky  Ford  District  is  situated  across  the  river  in  Tazewell  County. 
This  is  a  private  district  of  1,000  acres  belonging  to  an  estate.  Four  and 
one-half  miles  of  levee  and  two  and  one-half  miles  of  ditches  have  been 
constructed. 

Below  this  point  the  valley  widens  to  about  four  miles  and  all  the  bottom 
land  is  within  districts.  First  comes  the  Spring  Lake  Drainage  and  Levee 
District,  which  covers  12,100  acres.  It  was  organized  in  1903  and  com- 
pleted in  1910.  The  soil  is  extremely  fertile  and  recent  sales  brought  $250 
an  acre.  The  pumping  station  is  at  the  lower  end,  and  the  land  has  just 
enough  slope  to  give  good  drainage  through  35  miles  of  ditches.  The  levee 
is  16  miles  in  length,  and  being  convex  in  shape  is  not  subjected  to  wave 
action.  Within  the  district  there  is  a  long  narrow  and  shallow  body  of 
water  known  as  Spring  Lake,  which  covers  about  800  acres.  It  is  about 
seven  miles  long  and  one-eighth  to  one-quarter  of  a  mile  in  width,  and  lies 


100  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

close  to  the  bluff.  This  lake  is  surrounded  by  a  small  levee  which  was  built 
to  prevent  the  lake  from  being  drained.  The  lake  was  declared  a  navigable 
body  of  water  and  the  property  of  the  State,  and  the  commissioners  were 
required  to  construct  the  levee  around  the  lake  and  an  outlet  channel  to  the 
south  end  of  the  district.  Here  a  Marine  Railway  which  cost  the  district 
$50,000  was  constructed  for  lifting  boats  over  the  levee.  The  commissioners 
state  "that  there  has  never  been  a  single  act  of  navigation  committed  on  the 
lake  since  this  work  was  finished  four  years  ago  (1915)  and  there  had  not 
been  any  navigation  on  the  lake  for  more  than  twenty  years  prior  to  that 
time.  The  water  therein  is  from  one  to  two  feet  deep  and  there  isn't  any- 
thing in  the  lake  or  along  the  lake  for  which  any  person  would  navigate  the 
same.  The  grain  elevators  are  built  on  the  river  proper  and  the  said  lake  is 
now,  and  always  has  been,  no  more  than  a  stagnant  body  of  water  of  no 
value  to  anyone."  Similar  statements  were  made  by  several  other  parties 
who  were  in  a  position  to  know  the  conditions.  From  the  above  statement 
it  is  evident  that  the  commissioners  would  like  to  drain  Spring  Lake  and 
place  its  800  acres  under  cultivation.  This  is  the  logical  and  sensible  course 
to  take  and  permission  should  be  secured  through  the  Legislature  to  reclaim 
this  area. 

Across  the  river  from  the  Spring  Lake  District  the  Banner  Special 
Drainage  and  Levee  District  is  situated.  It  was  organized  in  1912,  com- 
pleted in  1917,  and  gives  complete  drainage  to  4,000  acres  of  bottom  land. 
Over  seven  miles  of  levee  have  been  constructed  and  about  eight  miles  of 
ditches.  A  pumping  plant,  electrically  operated,  has  been  built  at  the  lower 
end  of  the  district.  There  were  four  lakes  within  this  area  which  were 
filled  with  water  the  year  round  to  a  depth  of  three  or  four  feet.  These 
have  been  drained  and  their  beds  comprise  the  most  productive  land  in  the 
district.  In  1912  the  land  was  worth  $3.50  an  acre.  The  present  value  of 
the  land,  where  cleared,  tiled  and  in  cultivation  is  $225  an  acre,  subject  to 
the  first  assessment  of  $47.75  an  acre.  It  is  rapidly  rising  in  value.  Cop- 
peras Creek,  which  was  straightened  at  its  lower  end,  forms  the  southern 
boundary  of  the  district.  Copperas  Creek  dam  is  located  about  one  mile 
farther  south. 

South  of  Copperas  Creek  the  Wakonda  District  begins.  It  is  about 
three  miles  wide  and  five  miles  long,  and  contains  7,700  acres.  This  dis- 
trict is  in  process  of  construction,  and  at  present  none  of  the  land  can  be 
cultivated.     The  plans  provide  for  a  pumping  plant. 

To  the  south  of  the  Wakonda  the  East  Liverpool  Drainage  and  Levee 
District  is  nearing  completion.  It  was  organized  in  1916  and  contains  3,300 
acres.  It  is  constructing  seven  and  one-half  miles  of  levee,  eight  miles  of 
ditches,  and  about  two  miles  of  large  tile  drains.  In  1016  the  land  was 
valued   at   about   $5   an   acre,   its   present   value    is   $75,   and    when    drained 


ILLINOIS   RIVER   WATERSHED  ,        101 

will  be  as  valuable  as  that  in  neighboring  completed  districts.  It  will  operate 
a  pumping  plant. 

The  Liverpool  Drainage  and  Levee  District  comes  next  with  3,300  acres. 
It  was  organized  in  1916  but  is  not  completed. 

Abutting  the  above  area  on  the  south  is  the  Thompson  Lake  Drainage 
and  Levee  District.  The  owners  of  the  land  had  considerable  difficulty  in 
organizing  due  to  the  fact  that  a  large  part  of  the  area  was  covered  by 
Thompson  Lake,  a  body  of  water  about  six  miles  long  and  from  one-half  to 
three-fourths  of  a  mile  in  width,  and  because  the  land  adjoining  could  not 
be  reclaimed  without  draining  the  lake.  The  question  arose  as  to  the  owner- 
ship of  the  lake.  The  State  authorities  held  that  the  lake  was  a  navigable 
body  of  water  and  therefore  the  property  of  the  State.  The  question  was 
carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  which  rendered  a  decision  in  favor  of  the 
landowners.  The  district  was  organized  and  is  now  under  construction. 
The  cost  of  clearing  and  draining  the  5,400  acres  in  this  area  will  be  about 
$80  an  acre.  A  portion  of  it  is  now  farmed  and  produces  crops  almost  every 
year.  The  formation  of  the  district  was  made  necessary  by  the  increase 
in  the  low  water  stage  of  the  river  due  to  the  water  from  the  Sanitary  Dis- 
trict. The  commissioners  state  that  the  increase  is  from  four  to  six  feet. 
The  plans  provide  for  complete  drainage  of  the  land  and  include  a  pumping 
plant. 

A  privately  constructed  levee  district  known  as  the  Crabtree  District 
joins  the  Thompson  Lake  District  on  the  southwest.  There  are  1,440  acres 
in  this  tract. 

At  the  mouth  of  Spoon  River  the  bottom  land  has  not  been  reclaimed, 
and  presents  a  very  feasible  drainage  project.  This  area  is  considered  in 
this  report  as  part  of  the  Spoon  River  watershed  and  is  discussed  in  Chap- 
ter XIV. 

On  the  east  side  of  the  river,  about  four  miles  north  of  Havana,  the 
Chautauqua  Drainage  and  Levee  District  is  now  under  process  of  construc- 
tion. It  contains  4,120  acres,  which  will  be  protected  from  overflow  by  12 
miles  of  levee  and  drained  by  10  miles  of  ditches.  A  pumping  plant  will  be 
used  to  lift  the  water  from  the  district  during  flood  periods. 

North  of  the  Chautauqua  District  lies  Mud  Lake.  It  has  been  proposed 
several  times  to  organize  a  district  for  draining  the  lake,  but  nothing  has 
been  done. 

A  large  area  in  Mason  County  and  a  portion  of  Tazewell  County  drain 
into  the  Illinois  through  Quiver  Creek,  and  three  districts  have  been  formed 
in  this  area. 

Along  the  lower  end  of  the  creek  the  Quiver  River  District  has  dredged 
the  channel  for  about  eight  miles  and  provided  an  adequate  outlet  for  the 
land  above.  This  district  is  quite  narrow  and  contains  only  2,000  acres.  At 
the  upper  end  of  the  watershed  lies  the  Mason  and  Tazewell  Special  Drain- 


102  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

age  District,  which  contains  40,760  acres.  It  was  organized  in  1885  and  has 
constructed  some  50  miles  of  ditches.  It  has  proved  very  successful  and 
the  average  value  of  the  land  is  about  $250  an  acre. 

The  third  one  of  this  group  is  the  Garden  Special  which  was  organized 
in  1883  and  completed  in  1886.  There  are  8,800  acres  in  this  tract,  which 
has  been  overflowed  only  twice  since  the  construction  of  the  ditches,  namely, 
in  1889  and  1917. 

The  Havana  Drainage  District  No.  2  is  situated  about  four  miles  south 
of  Havana.  Its  three  miles  of  ditches  were  completed  in  1892  and  give  satis- 
factory outlets  to  3,840  acres.  The  land  is  valued  at  about  $200  an  acre 
and  the  landowners  are  satisfied  with  the  result  of  the  project. 

In  the  six  miles  of  river  bottom  south  of  Havana  five  districts  have 
been  organized.  The  first  of  these  is  the  Lacey  Levee  and  Drainage  Dis- 
trict which  was  completed  in  1893.  Its  drainage  works  consist  of  four  miles 
of  levee  and  seven  miles  of  ditches.  Individual  landowners  have  laid  about 
100  miles  of  small  tile  drains.  The  district  contains  3,000  acres  and  the  com- 
missioners state  that  it  should  be  enlarged  to  include  lands  to  the  north.  It  is 
operating  satisfactorily. 

South  of  this  is  the  Langellier,  a  privately  constructed  district  of  2,100 
acres.  There  are  about  five  miles  of  levee,  one-quarter  mile  of  ditch,  and 
about  two  miles  of  large  tile.  The  water  inside  the  district  is  pumped  into 
the  river. 

Further  to  the  south  is  the  West  Matanzas  Drainage  and  Levee  District, 
containing  2,800  acres,  which  has  just  been  completed.  Only  about  one-half 
the  area  is  in  cultivation,  but  it  will  require  only  a  short  time  to  clear  the 
remainder  and  get  it  in  condition  to  farm.  Eight  and  one-half  miles  of  levee 
and  seven  miles  of  ditches  have  been  constructed.  The  outlet  is  into  Otter 
Creek. 

West  of  the  last  two  districts  the  Otter  Creek  District  was  formed,  but 
was  later  dissolved  and  the  area  reorganized  into  two  districts,  the  Kerton 
Valley  and  the  Seahorn.  The  former  contains  1,740  acres  and  the  latter 
2,800  acres.  Both  are  levee  districts  and  the  land  ranges  in  value  from  $150 
to  $330  an  acre. 

Between  Kerton  and  Wilson  Creeks  the  bottoms  are  still  subject  to 
overflow.  There  are  3,000  acres,  approximately,  in  this  tract  which  can 
be  reclaimed  just  as  easily  and  profitably  as  the  areas  above  and  below. 

South  of  Wilson  Creek  are  the  Big  Lake  and  Kelly  Lake  Districts,  con- 
taining 3,250  and  990  acres,  respectively.  The  former  district  was  com- 
pleted in  1912,  and  is  proving  very  successful.  It  has  six  miles  of  levee  and 
three  miles  of  ditches.  The  interior  water  is  pumped  into  the  river.  1  he 
land  is  worth  from  $200  to  $250  an  acre.     Practically  all  the  land  is  tiled. 

The  Kelly  Lake  District  was  organized  in  1916  and  has  not  yet  com- 
pleted its  four  miles  of  levee  and  two  miles  of  main  ditch.     This  is  also  a 


ILLINOIS    RIVER    WATERSHED  103 

pumping  district.  There  is  no  reason  why  this  area  should  not  increase  in 
value  to  the  same  extent  as  that  to  the  north  of  it. 

On  the  east  side  of  the  river  from  about  Matanzas  to  the  Sangamon 
River  the  bottoms  are  about  two  miles  wide  and  none  of  it  has  been  reclaimed. 
There  are  about  14,100  acres  in  this  tract  and  all  of  it  could  be  brought 
under  production  through  organization. 

South  of  the  Sangamon  there  are  13,000  acres  subject  to  overflow. 
Nearly  all  of  the  land  is  cleared  and  under  cultivation.  It  is  entirely  covered 
with  water  in  the  spring  and  does  not  dry  out  sufficiently  for  planting  till 
about  June.  Summer  floods  on  the  Sangamon  or  the  Illinois  cause  frequent 
loss  of  crops,  but  the  crops  which  are  harvested  are  so  abundant  that  most 
of  the  area  is  planted  each  year.  There  are  no  swamp  lands  here  though 
there  are  some  sloughs  which  are  used  by  duck  clubs  for  hunting  purposes. 

Part  of  this  area  is  being  organized  into  the  Griggs  Chapel  District, 
which  is  shown  on  map  as  area  No.  77.  Lately  the  area  to  the  east  is  being 
incorporated  into  the  Sangamon  Valley  District.  These  prospective  dis- 
tricts overlap  and  probably  only  one  will  perfect  an  organization.  There  is 
an  unusual  amount  of  bitter  feeling  between  the  advocates  of  each  district, 
and  each  is  trying  to  prevent  the  formation  of  the  other  district.  The  re- 
sult will  be  a  large  amount  of  litigation  before  either  is  successfully  organized. 

East  of  Beardstowm  are  two  organized  districts,  the  Hager  Slough  Spe- 
cial and  the  Lost  Creek.  The  former  embraces  3,240  acres  and  is  purely 
a  drainage  district.  Its  ditches  are  of  ample  size  and  are  in  good  condition. 
However,  it  has  no  levees  and  is  flooded  at  high  stages  of  the  river.  It  can 
be  leveed  at  comparatively  small  expense  since  about  one  mile  of  levee  would 
close  the  gap  at  the  river,  and  the  ground  on  the  north  is  high  and  would 
not  require  a  very  high  or  strong  levee. 

The  Lost  Creek  District  as  shown  on  the  map  contains  2,260  acres. 
The  blue  area  to  the  northwest  (No.  78)  which  is  listed  as  the  proposed  Lost 
Creek  annexation  has  been  annexed,  and  the  construction  of  a  levee  along 
the  river  is  now  in  progress. 

North  of  Frederick,  above  Beardstown,  a  district  of  that  name  is  being 
organized.  There  are  only  960  acres  in  the  tract,  and  the  cost  of  levees, 
ditches,  and  pumping  plant  will  be  about  $140  an  acre.  This  is  the  highest  price 
reclamation  which  has  ever  been  proposed  for  any  district  in  the  State. 
But,  since  the  land  is  now  worthless,  and  when  reclaimed  will  be  worth 
$250  or  more  an  acre,  it  will  prove  a  good  investment.  There  is  not  much 
opposition  and  the  organization  will  undoubtedly  be  accomplished. 

Across  from  Beardstown,  the  Coal  Creek  District  was  organized  in 
1896,  completed  in  1899,  and  reconstructed  from  1908  to  1912.  The  size 
of  this  tract  is  6,800  acres.  It  now  has  over  ten  miles  of  river  levee,  about 
the  same  length  of  interior  ditches,  a  diversion  ditch  along  the  bluff,  and  a 
pumping  plant.     The  district  has  accomplished  its  purpose ;    however,  one 


104  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

of  the  commissioners  advises  that  the  cost  of  the  district  work  plus  the  cost 
of  the  private  work  of  clearing,  tiling,  and  other  improvements  amounts  to 
almost  as  much  as  the  reclaimed  lands  will  sell  for. 

South  of  the  Coal  Creek  District  lies  the  Crane  Creek  District  which 
covers  5,200  acres.  About  eight  miles  of  levee  keep  out  the  river  water, 
and  ten  miles  of  ditches  carry  the  interior  water  to  the  pumps.  It  was  com- 
pleted in  1910  and  is  considered  a  successful  district.  The  commissioners 
suggest  that  Crooked  Creek  be  diverted  around  the  Big  Prairie  District  to 
the  advantage  of  both  districts. 

The  Big  Prairie  District  on  the  south  of  Crooked  Creek  has  given  com- 
plete satisfaction.  It  completed  its  levee,  ditches,  and  pumping  plant  in 
1918.  In  1915  the  land  was  worth  about  $15  an  acre;  in  1919  it  had  in- 
creased to  $100;   and  when  improved  by  tiling  will  be  much  more  valuable. 

South  of  Beardstown  the  bottom  land  on  the  east  of  the  river  is  incor- 
porated in  the  South  Beardstown  Drainage  and  Levee  District.  There  are 
8,100  acres  in  this  tract,  the  drainage  works  for  wrhich  were  completed  in 
1918.     This  is  a  pumping  district  and  it  should  prove  very  successful. 

East  of  this  area  3,200  acres  are  combined  in  the  Valley  Drainage  and 
Levee  District.  Its  outlet  is  in  Indian  Creek  at  the  south  end  of  the  district 
where  one  and  one-half  miles  of  levee  keep  out  the  backwater  from  the 
river.  Eight  miles  of  ditches  have  been  dredged  which  carry  the  interior 
water  to  the  pumping  plant.  A  24-inch  pump  driven  by  an  80-h.p.  motor 
comprises  the  pumping  equipment.  Before  completion  in  1916,  at  least  two- 
thirds  of  the  area  was  practically  worthless.  The  land  is  now  valued  from 
$120  to  $150  an  acre. 

The  Meredosia  Drainage  and  Levee  District  is  south  of  the  last-named 
districts  and  is  partly  in  Cass  and  partly  in  Morgan  County.  It  is  about 
two  miles  from  the  river,  and  its  levee  is  along  the  east  side  of  Meredosia 
Lake.  The  district  contains  4,000  acres  and  its  nine  miles  of  levee  and  six 
miles  of  ditches  were  constructed  in  1905.  The  pumping  equipment  con- 
sists of  a  24-inch  centrifugal  pump  driven  by  steam  power.  A  28-inch  and 
a  30-inch  pipe  in  the  levee  allows  the  water  to  flow  by  gravity  from  the  dis- 
trict at  normal  stages  of  the  river.  The  levee  broke  in  1913  and  the  land 
was  submerged.    It  was  rebuilt  in  1914  and  made  higher  and  wider. 

To  the  east  along  Indian  Creek  six  districts  have  been  organized.  First 
of  these  is  the  New  Pankey  Pond  Special,  a  small  district  of  1,400  acres 
which  is  operating  fairly  satisfactorily.  It  is  leveed  on  the  Indian  Creek 
side  and  has  a  pumping  plant  for  use  during  flood  stages.  The  Lower  Indian 
Creek  District  is  on  the  north  and  overlaps  the  northeast  corner  of  the  Pankey 
Pond  District.  It  was  completed  in  1917  and  contains  800  acres.  It  was 
formed  to  open  up  Indian  Creek,  but  did  not  do  a  thorough  job  and  has  been 
only  partly  successful. 

Indian  Creek  Drainage  District  No.  2  contains  5,520  acres  and  extends 


ILLINOIS   RIVER   WATERSHED  105 

along  Indian  Creek  to  a  point  above  Jacksonville.  It  was  organized  in  1917, 
but  on  account  of  litigation  work  was  not  started  till  1920.  This  district  will 
provide  better  outlets  for  the  neighboring  districts,  but  one  of  the  difficulties 
has  been  to  secure  aid  from  these  districts.  The  majority  were  for  drain- 
age, but  as  a  commissioner  expressed  it,  "our  trouble  and  litigation  came 
from  a  few  large  land  owners  who  claim  that  God  made  the  duck  ponds 
and  that  it  would  be  sacrilegious  to  change  His  work."  The  objectors  were 
beaten  in  both  the  County  and  the  Supreme  Court.  The  attorney  for  the 
objectors,  who  was  also  a  member  of  the  Legislature,  then  secured  the 
passage  of  an  amendment  to  Section  58  of  the  Levee  Act,  which  automat- 
ically changed  the  jurisdiction  of  the  case  from  the  Morgan  County  Court 
to  that  of  Cass  County.  The  Cass  County  owners  along  the  Creek,  fearing 
that  they  would  be  flooded  by  the  water  from  above,  petitioned  to  be  an- 
nexed to  the  district,  so  that  the  improvement  might  be  carried  beyond  them. 
The  result  of  this  annexation  was  that  the.  majority  of  the  acreage  of  the 
district  was  in  Cass  County  and,  in  accordance  with  Section  58,  the  pro- 
ceedings were  transferred  to  Cass  County.  However,  the  district  won  its 
fight  here,  and  started  construction  work  in  1920.  Section  58  is  still  in  effect, 
however,  and  has  caused  considerable  trouble  throughout  the  State. 

The  Clear  Creek  Drainage  District,  2.700  acres,  lies  along  the  creek  of 
that  name  and  has  its  outlet  in  Indian  Creek.  It  will  be  benefited  by  the 
work  of  the  Indian  Creek  District  No.  2. 

The  Mud  Creek  District  is  south  of  the  main  portion  of  District  No.  2 
and  contains  5,520  acres.  It  was  organized  in  1899,  and  gave  adequate  drain- 
age to  the  lands  for  a  number  of  years.  Now  the  ditches  need  cleaning  and 
probably  will  be  improved  shortly.  The  commissioners  are  planning  to 
join  with  Indian  Creek  District  No.  2  in  constructing  a  new  outlet. 

Indian  Creek  District  No.  1  includes  900  acres  along  the  upper  end  of 
that  stream,  and  joins  on  to  District  No.  2. 

North  of  the  City  of  Jacksonville  the  Mauvaisterre  Drainage  and  Levee 
District  was  completed  in  1915.  It  has  reclaimed  a  narrow  strip  of  land — 
about  one-third  of  a  mile  wide — about  five  miles  in  length.  It  is  considered 
successful,  though  the  commissioners  state  that  the  improvement  should  be 
extended  downstream  about  ten  miles  to  provide  a  better  outlet. 

Along  Willow^  Creek,  which  empties  into  Meredosia  Lake,  the  Willow- 
Creek  Drainage  and  Levee  District  is  situated.  It  covers  3,600  acres  and 
has  been  fairly  satisfactory.  There  are  about  500  acres  which  are  not  useful. 
It  has  two  miles  of  levee  and  over  four  miles  of  ditches,  which  were  cleaned 
out  in  1916.  It  does  not  have  complete  protection  from  flood  waters  or 
relief   from  heavy  rainfalls. 

The  Coon  River  Levee  and  Drainage  District  was  completed  in  1902, 
and  contains  4,630  acres  along  Coon  Run.  For  a  time  the  district  was  suc- 
cessful, but  for  the  last  twelve  years  it  has  been  overflowed.     Its  main  ditch 


106  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

is  in  Coon  Run  which  was  leveed  by  the  spoil  taken  from  the  ditch.  Pro- 
tection is  needed  against  the  Illinois  River  water. 

Between  Meredosia  Lake  and  the  river  is  a  strip  of  overflowed  area 
nearly  one  mile  in  width  and  about  six  miles  in  length  and  containing  ap- 
proximately 4,200  acres.  To  reclaim  this  area,  levees  will  be  needed  both 
along  the  river  and  along  the  west  side  of  the  lake,  which  is  a  navigable  body 
of  water.  The  cost  of  this  work  has  so  far  prevented  the  reclamation  of 
this  area.  South  of  Meredosia  is  another  overflowed  area  of  3,500  acres. 
There  is  some  sand  here  and  between  this  area  and  the  Coon  Run  District 
there  is  a  sand  ridge.    The  feasibility  of  reclaiming  this  area  is  doubtful. 

The  bottom  land  on  the  west  side  of  the  river  is  all  in  districts.  A 
short  distance  below  the  Big  Prairie  District,  a  small  area  of  850  acres  has 
been  reclaimed  privately.  The  land  is  owned  by  Dr.  Kerr  and  the  district 
is  named  after  him.  The  district  to  the  south  (No.  58  on  map)  is  really  an 
extension  of  Dr.  Kerr's  district.  He  and  Mr.  Crane  own  the  land  and  the 
district  is  listed  in  Table  13  under  their  names.  The  enterprise  has  been 
highly  successful.  They  have  bought  a  drag  line  machine  and  are  construct- 
ing four  miles  of  levee  in  the  south  area.  The  land  costs  about  $20  an 
acre,  and  Mr.  Crane  estimates  that  by  the  time  the  land  is  leveed,  drained, 
cleared,  and  ready  to  cultivate,  the  total  cost  will  be  about  $110  an  acre,  and 
will  have  a  market  value  from  $200  to  $250.  The  north  area  has  a  pumping 
station  and  one  is  planned  for  the  south  area. 

Directly  below  the  above  districts  the  bottom  land  is  included  in  the 
McGee's  Creek  Drainage  and  Levee  District.  There  are  11,250  acres  in  this 
tract  which  lie  in  Brown  and  Pike  counties.  The  southern  part  of  this  dis- 
trict is  well  drained.  The  northern  part,  however,  especially  north  of  the 
Wabash  Railroad,  contains  a  considerable  amount  of  low  land  which,  while 
protected  from  overflow,  is  inadequately  drained,  and  is  capable  of  cultiva- 
tion only  in  very  favorable  seasons.  This  is  a  very  unusual  situation,  and 
there  is  talk  of  forming  a  subdistrict  for  this  area  and  installing  another 
pumping  plant.     At  present  probably  1,000  acres  are  practically  idle. 

The  Valley  City  Drainage  and  Levee  District  is  directly  south  of  the 
McGee's  Creek  District.  It  contains  6,000  acres  and  is  in  process  of  con- 
struction. This  is  the  last  district  on  the  west  of  the  river.  From  here  on 
the  river  flows  along  the  Pike  and  Calhoun  County  bluffs,  leaving  a  uniform 
width  of  about  three  miles  of  bottom  land  on  the  east  side. 

The  first  district  is  just  south  of  Naples  in  Scott  County.  It  is  the 
Mauvaisterre  Drainage  and  Levee  District,  and  includes  1,400  acres  within 
its  boundaries.  Next  comes  the  Scott  County  Drainage  and  Levee  District 
with  10,760  acres.  It  was  completed  in  1912  and  is  all  under  cultivation  ex- 
cept about  80  acres  near  the  pumping  station  which  it  uses  as  a  reservoir 
during  flood  periods.  The  pumping  equipment  consists  of  a  45-inch  and  a 
24-inch  pump  driven  by  steam,  which  with  the  aid  of  the  reservoir  have  so 


ILLINOIS    RIVER    WATERSHED  107 

far  removed  the  water  satisfactorily.  The  twelve  miles  of  levee  are  of 
ample  design  and  the  twelve  miles  of  ditches  are  in  excellent  condition.  The 
waters  of  Plum  and  Walnut  Creeks  have  been  diverted  and  flow  between 
levees  to  the  river.  This  channel  forms  the  south  boundary  line  of  the  dis- 
trict.    The  landowners  are  well  satisfied  with  their  investment  in  drainage. 

The  Big  Swan  District  begins  at  the  diversion  channel  above  mentioned, 
and  ends  at  Big  Sandy  Creek.  There  are  11,740  acres  within  the  district, 
which  has  constructed  eleven  miles  of  levee  and  fourteen  miles  of  ditches. 
All  are  in  excellent  condition.  The  pumping  equipment  consists  of  one  45- 
inch,  one  36-inch,  and  one  24-inch  pump  electrically  driven.  All  of  the  land 
is  under  cultivation  and  is  very  fertile.  This  is  a  very  successful  district 
and  is  an  excellent  example  of  what  can  be  done  with  overflowed  land. 

Next  is  the  Hillview  District,  which  was  completed  in  1909.  It  extends 
from  the  Big  Swan  District  to  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad,  and  em- 
braces 12,320  acres.  It  has  constructed  ten  miles  of  levee,  twenty-two  miles 
of  ditches,  and  a  pumping  station.  It  has  five  pumps  operated  by  steam — 
two  24-inch,  two  30-inch,  and  one  60-inch.  The  60-inch  pump  was  installed 
in  1920,  but  before  it  was  used  the  foundation  settled  and  the  intake  pipe 
sheared  off  at  the  casing.  The  total  cost  of  the  district  has  been  about  $45 
an  acre.  The  land  is  well  protected  and  is  valued  at  from  $100  to  $200 
an  acre. 

The  Hartwell  District  extends  from  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad 
to  Apple  Creek.  Its  thirteen  miles  of  levee,  eleven  miles  of  ditches,  and 
pumping  station  were  completed  in  1915.  The  entire  8,800  acres  in  the  dis- 
trict are  under  cultivation. 

Apple  Creek,  which  enters  the  Illinois  at  this  point,  drains  a  large  water- 
shed and  has  a  flood  plain  of  probably  one-half  mile  in  width  for  about 
twenty  miles  or  so  upstream.  Surveys  and  plans  have  been  made  for  im- 
proving the  crooked  channel  of  this  stream,  and  the  Apple  Creek  District  is 
in  process  of  organization.    About  8,520  acres  will  be  affected. 

To  the  south  of  Apple  Creek  the  Keach  Drainage  and  Levee  District 
has  been  organized  in  the  Illinois  River  bottoms.  It  contains  10,500  acres 
and  was  formed  in  1904.  It  has  built  over  eighteen  miles  of  levee  and  nine- 
teen miles  of  ditches,  and  operates  a  pumping  plant.  The  land  is  valued  at 
about  $75  an  acre.     About  1,140  acres  within  the  district  are  not  useful. 

The  Eldred  Drainage  and  Levee  District  joins  the  Keach  District  on 
the  south,  and  extends  to  Macoupin  Creek.  It  was  finished  in  1916.  All 
of  the  9,300  acres  are  capable  of  cultivation.  The  drainage  works  consist 
of  20  miles  of  levee,  20  miles  of  ditches,  and  a  pumping  plant.  It  has  given 
the  desired  drainage  and  protection,  and  the  commissioners  place  a  value  of 
$200  an  acre  on  the  land. 

The  Spankey  Drainage  and  Levee  District  was  organized  in  1917,  and 
completed  in  1919.     It  lies  above  Macoupin  Creek,  and  between  the  bluff  and 


108 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


the  Eldred  District.  There  are  only  860  acres  in  the  tract  which  is  protected 
from  overflow  by  levees.  However,  there  is  no  pumping  plant  and  the  area 
suffers  from  rainfall  during  high  stages  of  Macoupin  Creek  which  is  the 
outlet  of  the  district. 

South  of  Macoupin  Creek  the  Nutwood  Drainage  and  Levee  District 
has  reclaimed  11,300  acres.  Macoupin  Creek  was  diverted  from  the  district 
by  a  cut-off  to  the  river  at  Titus.  It  is  all  leveed  and,  with  the  exception  of 
about  500  acres,  is  under  cultivation.  Thirty-two  miles  of  ditches  have  been 
constructed  with  an  outlet  in  Otter  Creek.  This  is  the  southernmost  dis- 
trict in  the  watershed.  From  this  point  to  the  mouth  of  the  river,  no 
reclamation  work  has  been  done.  On  the  east  side  of  the  stream  there  are 
about  6,000  acres  of  overflowed  land,  and  on  the  west  about  25,000  acres. 
Most  of  the  latter  area  is  in  the  bend  of  the  Mississippi  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Illinois.  The  land  is  low  and  swampy,  and  there  is  no  interest  manifested  in 
its  reclamation.  The  principal  crop  of  Calhoun  County  is  fruit,  and  since 
the  bottom  land  is  not  suitable  for  fruit  growing,  very  little  thought  has  been 
given  to  it.  Lying  as  this  tract  does  at  the  junction  of  two  large  rivers,  its 
reclamation  may  prove  difficult.  Further  study  is  needed  to  decide  this 
question. 

The  present  status  of  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom  land  in  the  Illinois 
Valley  is  shown  in  the  following  table : 


Location 

Districts  organized 
or  being  organized 

Acreage 
unreclaimed 

Per  cent 

No. 

Acreage 

unreclaimed 

Above  Peoria 

,     7 
11 
13 
21 
52 

16,720 

46,260 

32,640 

127,790 

223,410 

35,410 

4,600 

30,100 

38,700 

108,810 

84 

Between  Havana  and  Peoria 

9 

Between  Beardstown  and  Havana 

48 

Between  Grafton  and  Beardstown 

23 

Total  for  River 

33 

From  this  it  is  seen  that  about  one-third  of  the  bottom  land  remains  to 
be  reclaimed.  Above  Peoria  only  16  per  cent  has  been  protected  from  over- 
flow, which  is  probably  ascribable  to  the  comparative  narrowness  of  the 
valley.  This  part  of  the  valley  has  suffered  more  from  the  discharge  of  the 
Chicago  Sanitary  Canal  than  has  the  portion  below.  A  large  part  of  the 
bottoms  was  formerly  under  cultivation.  Of  the  damage  claims  preferred 
against  the  Sanitary  District,  50  per  cent  were  from  this  portion  of  the 
Valley. 

The  stretch  between  Peoria  and  Havana  has  been  91  per  cent  reclaimed. 
That  which  remains  is  in  small  strips,  and  the  cost  of  its  protection  will  be 
high.  The  cost  of  a  district  which  is  now  being  organized  adjacent  to  these 
areas  is  estimated  at  $134  an  acre. 


ILLINOIS    RIVER    WATERSHED  109 

Between  Beardstown  and  Havana,  48  per  cent  remains  subject  to  over- 
flow, most  of  which  is  near  the  mouth  of  the  Sangamon. 

Below  Beardstown,  23  per  cent  is  unreclaimed,  of  which  65  per  cent  is 
at  the  mouth  of  the  river,  and  presents  a  more  difficult  problem  than  does 
the  land  above. 

In  1915,  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  published  a  report  on  the 
Illinois  River  and  its  bottom  lands,  prepared  by  John  W.  Alvord  and  Charles 
B.  Burdick,  Consulting  Engineers,  of  Chicago.  This  report  contains  infor- 
mation of  the  greatest  importance  to  landowners  who  contemplate  the  pro- 
tection of  their  lands  by  means  of  levees,  and  should  be  studied  by  them 
before  making  definite  plans. 

Some  abstracts  from  this  report  are  as  follows : 

"1.  At  nearly  all  places  upon  the  river,  the  flood  of  1844  reached  a 
greater  height  than  any  flood  of  record  before  or  since.  This  flood  occurred 
during  the  maximum  flood  upon  the  Mississippi  and  the  water  passed 
through  a  river  valley  entirely  unimproved,  very  likely  a  veritable  jungle. 
Under  all  these  circumstances,  it  is  questionable  if  the  flow  rates  in  the  1844 
flood  very  much  exceeded  those  in  1904. 

"2.  It  is  our  conclusion  that  it  is  wise  to  protect  the  valley  lands  against 
the  flood  occurring  upon  the  average  of  once  in  50  years,  namely,  a  flood 
about  35  per  cent  greater  in  rate  than  the  flood  of  1904. 

"3.  If  the  1904  flood  should  be  repeated  with  levee  districts  under  con- 
struction in  1915  completed,  the  maximum  stage  would  be  about  4.5  feet 
higher  at  Valley  City  than  in  1904;  at  Beardstown,  8  feet;  at  Havana,  7 
feet;   at  Peoria  6.5  feet;   and  at  the  Henry  Dam,  7  feet. 

"4.  If  a  flood  35  per  cent  greater  than  that  of  1904  should  occur  after 
the  valley  is  completely  leveed  and  should  enter  the  Mississippi  at  the  flood 
level  of  1844,  the  maximum  stage  at  Valley  City  would  be  8  feet  higher 
than  in  1904;  at  Beardstown,  8  feet;  at  Havana,  7  feet;  at  Peoria,  6.5  feet; 
and  at  the  Henry  Dam,  7  feet. 

"5.  In  the  Illinois  Valley,  levees  protect  farm  land  only.  A  failure  is 
not  likely  to  produce  loss  of  life,  for  in  flood,  levees  are  very  carefully 
watched,  and  if  a  levee  is  overtopped,  the  inhabitants  are  usually  prepared 
to  leave  some  time  in  advance  of  the  event.  The  damage1  from  flooding 
will  be  nominal  except  for  the  loss  of  a  crop.  The  flooding  of  a  district 
about  once  in  fifty  years  would  not  seem  to  involve  sufficient  damage  to 
incur  great  expense  to  provide  against  flooding,  but  when  the  ability  to 
readily  sell  the  land  is  considered,  it  is  probable  that  a  liberal  factor  of 
safety  in  the  height  of  levees  is  justified.  It  will  readily  be  seen  that  where 
at  all  possible  levees  should  extend  sufficiently  above  the  maximum  water 
level  to  guard  against  the  danger  of  over-topping  through  wave  action  and. 
wash." 


CHAPTER  XIII— GREEN  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Green  River  watershed  drains  970  square  miles  of  territory  situated 
in  Lee,  Whiteside,  Bureau,  and  Henry  counties.  A  large  amount  of  reclama- 
tion work  has  been  done,  and  with  the  exception  of  one  large  area  of  wet 
land  in  Lee  County,  the  watershed  has  been  well  taken  care  of  from  the 
standpoint  of  drainage  districts.  Table  14  gives  the  drainage  data  for  the 
twenty-three  districts  which  have  been  formed.  No  new  work  is  being  done 
at  present. 

The  Inlet  Swamp  Drainage  District,  30,900  acres,  is  at  the  extreme 
upper  end  of  the  watershed  and  abuts  upon  the  Kyte  River  District  in  the 
Rock  River  watershed.  It  is  an  old  district,  having  been  organized  in  1887. 
At  first  it  suffered  for  a  good  outlet  and  the  land  was  not  satisfactorily 
drained.  A  few  years  ago  Green  River,  which  flows  thru  the  district,  was 
dredged  and  straightened,  which  provided  the  much-needed  outlet.  Twenty 
miles  of  levee,  30  miles  of  open  ditches,  and  some  13  miles  of  large  tile 
drains  have  been  constructed.  Before  the  river  was  improved  the  district 
was  overflowed  every  year ;  now  the  area  is  well  drained  and  the  market 
value  of  the  land  is  about  $250  an  acre. 

South  of  Amboy  is  the  Maple  Grove  District  which  was  formed  in  1910. 
Six  miles  of  ditches  and  nine  miles  of  levees  have  been  built.  The  land  lias 
not  been  overflowed  since  the  completion  of  the  drainage  works  and  ranges 
in  value  from  $100  to  $200  an  acre.  The  owners  consider  the  project  a  suc- 
cess and  drainage  sentiment  is  very  favorable. 

In  the  southwest  corner  of  Lee  County  and  north  of  Green  River,  Union 
District  No.  1  of  Hamilton  and  Hahnaman  townships  and  Hamilton  Special 
District  No.  1  are  located.  The  boundaries  of  these  districts  as  shown  on 
the  map  are  only  approximate.  Both  are  overflowed  by  Green  River  and 
considerably  damaged.  The  river  will  have  to  be  dredged  before  these  dis- 
tricts can  be  fully  reclaimed.  The  land  across  the  river  is  not  organized 
and  of  the  13,500  acres  which  need  attention  only  about  50  per  cent  are 
cultivated  and  these  raised  only  about  one-third  of  a  crop.  However,  the 
soil  is  not  very  fertile.  There  are  small  areas  of  dune  sand  and  most  of  the 
area  is  sandy,  with  a  tight  clay  sub-soil. 

The  Hahnaman  District  No.  1,  8,070  acres,  occupies  most  of  the  area  of 
Whiteside  County  which  is  in  the  Green  River  watershed.  So  far  as  could 
be  determined  this  area  is  successfully  drained. 

The  Union  Special  District,  of  Fairfield,  Greenville,  and  Gold  townships, 
9,000  acres,  is  protected  from  overflow  by  four  miles  of  levees,  and  is  drained 
by  20  miles  of  ditches  and  two  miles  of  large  tile.  The  land  has  an  average 
market  value  of  about  $125  an  acre.  This  district  is  operating  successfully. 
Below  the  C.  B.  &  Q.  Railway  crossing  in  Whiteside  County  the  entire  Green 
River  valley  is  contained  in  drainage  districts.     Considerable  difficulty  has 


GREEN    RIVER    WATERSHED 


111 


been  experienced  in  keeping  the  channel  from  silting  up.     The  soil  is  loose 
and  sandy  and  washes  easily,  and  the  ditches  fill  up  as  does  the  river.    About 


Table  14. — Drainage  data  for  the  Green  River  zvatershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organized  drainage  districts 


9 

10 
11 
12 

13 
14 
15 
16 

17 

18 
19 
20 
21 

22 
23 


Inlet  Swamp 

Maple  Grove 

Union  No.  1,  Hamilton  and  Hahnaman 

Hamilton  Special  No.  1 

Hahnaman  No.  1 

Fairfield  No.  1 

Union  Special,  Fairfield,  Greenville,  and  Gold 

Green  River  Special 

Manlius  No.. 5 

Manlius  No.  6 

Manlius  No.  4 

Manlius  No.  1 

Hickory  Creek  Special 

Mineral  Marsh 

Green  River  Special 

Yorktown  No.  1 

Central  Special 

Union  Special 

Blue  Joint 

Big  Slough  Special 

Lower  Green  River  Special 

Shabbona  Special 

Mud  Creek 


Total 


J-.  res 

Lee 

30,900 

Lee 

3,260 

Lee- Whiteside 

9,000 

Lee 

2,500 

Whiteside 

8,070 

Bureau 

600 

Bureau 

9,800 

Bureau-Whiteside 

14,100 

Bureau 

1,870 

Bureau 

800 

Bureau 

1,000 

Bureau 

3,160 

Bureau 

3,760 

Bureau -Henrv 

9,600 

Bureau  Henry 

32,000 

Henry 

3,000 

Henry  Whiteside 

3,800 

Henry- Whiteside 

16,400 

Henry 

3,200 

Henry  Whiteside 

18,160 

Henry 

3,700 

Henry 

4,200 

Henry 

6,210 

189,090 


Districts  being  organized 


None. 


Overflozved  areas 


24 

25 


Southwest  corner  Lee  County 
South  of  Manlius 

Total 


Lee 
Bureau 


13,500 
1,200 


14,700 


every  ten  years  an  asssessment  of  about  $30  an  acre  is  necessary  to  clean 
them  out.  At  the  upper  end  of  Bureau  County  and  extending  somewhat 
into  Whiteside  County  is  the  Green  River  Special  district  which  lies  on  both 
sides  of  the  river  and  includes  14,100  acres  within  its  boundaries.  Just 
below  is  the  Green  River  Special  of  Bureau  and  Henry  counties,  organized 
in  1904,  which  contains  32,000  acres  and  extends  half  way  across  Henry 


112  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

County.  Fourteen  other  districts  to  trie  north  and  to  the  south  empty  their 
waters  into  the  latter  district.  No  levees  have  been  constructed  but  about  35 
miles  of  ditches  have  been  dredged.  The  district  was  overflowed  in  1912, 
1915,  1918,  and  1919.  The  fall  in  the  river  is  very  small  and  the  back 
water  from  the  Rock  River  extends  upstream  even  beyond  this  district. 
The  sentiment  is  for  levees  and  cleaner  ditches.  However,  the  commision- 
ers  state  that  the  value  of  the  land  is  from  $175  to  $225  an  acre. 

Manlius  No.  5  is  a  small  district  of  1,870  acres  at  the  upper  end  of 
Hickory  Creek. 

Manlius  No.  4,  1,000  acres,  and  Manlius  No.  6,  800  acres,  are  abutting 
districts  which  have  their  outlet  in  Hickory  Creek.  To  the  north  of  these 
districts  there  is  a  wet  area  of  some  1,200  acres  which  needs  attention. 

Manlius  No.  1,  3,160  acres,  is  north  of  Hickory  Creek  and  has  its  outlet 
in  that  stream.  This  district  has  annexed  lands  in  Gold  township  to  the 
west.    All  of  the  districts  in  this  township  have  given  satisfaction. 

The  Hickory  Creek  Special,  3,760  acres,  lies  along  Hickory  Creek.  It 
was  organized  in  1909  and  completed  in  1913.  The  drainage  works  consist 
of  eight  miles  of  ditches  and  four  miles  of  large  tile.  It  is  not  subject  to 
overflow  and  the  ditches  are  ample  to  dispose  of  the  rain  water.  It  is  con- 
sidered a  successful  district  and  the  land  has  risen  in  value  from  $75  to  $250 
an  acre. 

Downstream  from  the  above  district  is  the  Mineral  Marsh  district,  9,600 
acres,  about  one-third  of  which  is  in  Henry  County.  Hickory  and  Coal 
Creeks  flow  through  this  area.  Fourteen  miles  of  levee  protect  the  land 
from  overflow.  Drainage  is  accomplished  through  21  miles  of  ditches  and 
7  miles  of  large  tile.  The  land  is  held  at  $275  an  acre ;  when  the  district 
was  organized  in  1899  it  was  bought  for  $25  an  acre.  Naturally  the  drainage 
sentiment  in  this  community  is  good.  The  Illinois  and  Mississippi  Canal 
flows  through  the  southern  portion  of  this  district. 

All  of  the  Hickory  Creek  watershed  with  the  exception  of  the  wet  area 
above  mentioned  is  in  districts  which  are  operating  satisfactorily.  This  water 
is  emptied  into  Mud  Creek  where  it  is  augmented  by  that  from  two  large 
districts  along  that  stream.  It  all  flows  through  the  Green  River  Special 
District  into  Green  River. 

Mud  Creek  District,  6,210  acres,  drains  the  upper  end  of  Mud  Creek. 
No  levees  are  needed,  and  12  miles  of  ditches  and  one  mile  of  large  tile  pro- 
vide adequate  drainage.  The  district  was  completed  in  1909  and  the  present 
average  value  of  the  land  is  $250  an  acre.  About  one-half  mile  below  the 
outlet  of  the  district,  Mud  Creek  runs  under  the  Illinois  and  Mississippi 
Canal.  North  of  the  canal  the  creek  has  silted  up  and  as  a  result  the  land 
south  of  the  canal  is  overflowed.  This  area  might  be  annexed  to  the  Mud 
Creek  District. 

Adjoining  the   Mud   Creek   District  on  the  northwest  is  the   Shabonna 


GREEN   RIVER   WATERSHED  113 

Special  District,  4,200  acres,  which  was  completed  in  1913.  Its  outlet  is  Mud 
Creek,  thence  to  Green  River.  Three  miles  of  ditches  and  five  miles  of  large 
tile  serve  to  drain  this  area.  This  land  was  worth  $150  an  acre  before  the 
district  was  organized  and  as  a  result  of  the  improvement,  values  increased 
$50  an  acre. 

In  the  southeast  corner  of  Yorktown  township,  Henry  County,  York- 
town  District  No.  1  was  organized  in  1882.  It  was  not  completed  till  1908. 
The  district  contains  3,000  acres,  and  has  dredged  eight  miles  of  ditches  and 
laid  20  miles  of  tile.  It  is  just  north  of  Green  River  and  has  its  outlet  in  that 
stream.    The  present  average  value  of  the  land  is  estimated  at  $125  an  acre. 

The  Central  Special  District,  3,800  acres,  is  a  long  narrow  one,  extend- 
ing from  Green  River  to  the  watershed  line  in  Whiteside  County.  It  was 
organized  in  1882  and  the  first  ditches  were  excavated  with  teams  and  scrap- 
ers. In  1905  its  ten  miles  of  ditches  were  dredged  and  enlarged.  The  dis- 
trict has  not  sufficient  drainage  or  protection.  It  was  partially  overflowed  in 
1918    and  1919,  and  at  many  other  times  previously. 

To  the  west  of  the  Central  Special  and  overlapping  it  slightly  at  the 
upper  end  is  the  Union  Special  of  Henry  and  Whiteside  counties.  It  covers 
16,400  acres,  was  organized  in  1878,  and  completed  in  1880.  It  has  its  outlet 
in  Green  River,  the  lower  mile  and  a  half  being  in  the  Green  River  Special 
District.  It  has  32  miles  of  ditches  and  6.5  miles  of  large  tile.  With  the 
exception  of  a  small  portion  at  the  lower  end,  it  is  free  from  overflow.  The 
commissioners  place  an  average  value  of  $150  an  acre  on  the  land.  The 
owners  are  satisfied  with  the  results  of  the  undertaking. 

The  Big  Slough  Special  of  Henry  and  Whiteside  counties  extends  from 
the  Green  River  on  the  south  to  the  Rock  River  on  the  north  and  has  outlets 
in  both  streams.  However,  since  about  85  per  cent  drains  into  the  Green 
River  it  has  been  included  in  that  watershed.  There  are  18,160  acres  in  the 
district.  It  is  substantially  free  from  overflow  and  is  satisfactorily  drained 
by  its  50  miles  of  ditches.    The  value  of  the  land  is  about  $200  an  acre. 

The  Blue  Joint  District  lies  between  the  last  two  districts  described  and 
contains  3,200  acres.  The  details  concerning  this  district  other  than  its 
boundaries  were  not  obtained. 

The  Lower  Green  River  Special  begins  where  the  Green  River  Special 
of  Henry  and  Bureau  Counties  ends.  This  is  the  newest  district  in  the 
watershed,  having  been  organized  in  1916  and  completed  in  1920.  It  is  a 
"shoestring"  district,  with  an  average  width  of  less  than  one  mile,  and  a 
length  of  about  7.5  miles.  There  are  3700  acres  in  the  district  of  which  about 
1000  acres  are  not  useful.  Six  and  one-half  miles  of  levee  and  the  same  length 
of  ditches  give  protection  from  flood  waters  and  relief  from  rainfall.  As  a 
result  of  protection  and  drainage,  the  land  has  increased  from  $75  an  acre 
to  $225. 

There  is  a  narrow  strip  of  overflowed  land  west  of  the  Lower  Green 


114  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

River  Special,  which  is  not  shown  on  the  map,  since  it  is  doubtful  whether 
it  is  of  sufficient  size  to  warrant  reclamation. 

The  drainage  sentiment  in  this  watershed  has  always  been  good  as  is 
evidenced  by  the  large  area  reclaimed  and  by  the  age  of  most  of  the  districts. 
The  problem  now  is  to  provide  better  protection  against  overflow  for  the 
lands  along  the  river.  The  river  is  silting  up,  due  to  low  velocity  and  to 
the  sandy  character  of  the  soil,  thereby  impairing  the  efficiency  of  the  many 
districts  which  empty  into  it.  In  fact  the  trouble  is  largely  due  to  the  Rock 
River,  which  has  rock  ledges  near  its  outlet  which  restrict  the  flow  as  far 
upstream  as  Sterling  and  back  up  the  water  in  the  Green  River.  It  is.  to  be 
noted  that  the  newer  districts  have  built  levees.  Possibly  the  older  ones 
might  profitably  do  likewise.  However,  with  the  area  organized  and  under 
the  supervision  of  drainage  commissioners,  all  difficulties  will  be  gradually 
overcome. 


CHAPTER  XIV— SPOON  RIVER  WATERSHED 

Approximately  1790  square  miles  compose  the  Spoon  River  watershed, 
which  covers  portions  of  Bureau,  Henry,  Stark,  Marshall,  Knox,  Peoria, 
Warren,  McDonough,  and  Fulton  counties. 

The  East  Fork  of  Spoon  River  rises  in  the  southwestern  corner  of 
Bureau  County,  and  the  West  Fork  has  its  source  in  Henry  County.  The 
two  forks  join  just  north  of  Modena  in  Stark  County  to  form  the  main 
channel  of  the  river,  which  flows  in  a  southerly  direction  through  Stark- 
County,  thence  westward  through  the  northwest  corner  of  Peoria  County 
and  the  east  portion  of  Knox  County,  thence  southerly  through  Knox  and 
Fulton  counties  into  the  Illinois  River,  opposite  Havana.  Its  principal  tribu- 
taries are  Indian  Creek,  Walnut  Creek,  French  Creek,  Cedar  Creek,  and 
Put  Creek. 

The  extreme  length  of  the  watershed  is  115  miles  and  the  extreme  width 
54  miles.  The  topography  is  generally  flat,  except  near  the  streams  where 
it  varies  from  rolling  to  hilly. 

The  upland  soil  is  a  brown  silt  loam  and  the  bottom  soil  is  a  deep  brown 
silt  loam.  Corn  is  the  principal  crop  raised  in  the  river  bottom  and  crops 
are  lost  through  overflow  about  once  in  three  years. 

The  portion  of  Bureau  County  in  this  watershed  has  numerous  small 
creeks  which  provide  adequate  outlets  for  tile  drains,  and  the  landowners 
have  been  able  to  drain  their  lands  without  the  aid  of  drainage  districts. 

The  natural  drainage  of  Stark  County  is  very  good.  The  land  is 
slightly  rolling  and  there  are  no  large  areas  of  level  land.  There  has  been 
no  organized  drainage  in  this  county.  A  large  amount  of  tiling  has  been 
done  and  all  the  small  level  areas  are  now  well  taken  care  of.  The  land- 
owners appreciate  the  value  of  drainage  and  have  done  all  the  work  on 
their  own  initiative.  Good  outlets  exist  naturally  and  no  need  has  been  felt 
for  combined  drainage.  About  three  years  ago  an  attempt  was  made  to 
organize  a  district  along  Spoon  River  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  county, 
but  not  much  progress  has  been  made.  The  district  as  proposed  is  shown 
in  blue  on  the  map.  The  river  here  is  winding  and  irregular.  The  run-off 
from  the  rolling  ground  adjacent  causes  the  river  to  overflow  at  times,  but 
evidently  the  damage  is  not  serious  enough  to  convince  all  the  owners  of  the 
advisability  of  straightening  the  river.  Hence  it  is  rather  doubtful  whether 
a  district  will  be  organized  for  this  area. 

Knox  County  is  also  well  drained  naturally,  and  no  drainage  districts 
have  been  formed.  Some  tiling  has  been  done  through  individual  or  mutual 
effort,  using  the  many  small  streams  as  outlets.  The  drainage  problem  in 
this  county  is  along  the  Spoon  River,  where  the  bottoms  vary  from  one-half 
mile  to  one  mile  in  width.  The  river  has  cut  its  channel  far  below  the  level 
of  the  uplands,   from  which  there  is  a  high   run-off,   resulting  in    frequent 

(115) 


116 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


overflows.  The  channel  is  so  winding  that  the  water  is  carried  away  much 
more  slowly  than  it  enters  the  valley,  and  hence  the  bottoms  are  flooded 
frequently  for  periods  of  several  days.  Generally  the  floods  occur  in  the 
spring,  but  often  they  come  during  the  summer  and  cause  loss  of  crops. 
For  the  most  part  the  valley  is  too  narrow  to  levee,  and  any  improvements 
must  take  the  form  of  river  straightening  to  allow  the  water  to  run  off 
faster.     The  older  farmers  are  satisfied  to  take  their  chances  on  getting  a 


Table   15. — Drainage  data  for  the  Spoon   River  zvatershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

Organized  drainage  districts 

1 

Pleasant  Valley 

Fulton 

Acres 
1,500 

Districts  being  organized 

2 

Upper  Spoon  River,  Drainage  and  Levee Stark 

4,240 

Overf hived  areas 

3 

Along  Spoon  River 

Peoria-Knox-Fulton 

30,200 

Upland  areas  needing  drainage 

4 

Akron  Township 

Peoria 

8,300 

crop.  The  soil  is  so  fertile  and  the  crops  so  abundant  that  they  are  content 
to  lose  one  crop  in  three.  However,  the  younger  farmers  and  the  men  who 
have  bought  the  bottom  land  as  an  investment  are  anxious  to  improve 
conditions. 

Fulton  County  has  the  only  drainage  district  in  the  watershed.  In  1918, 
the  Pleasant  Valley  District  was  organized  southeast  of  Babylon.  It  is  now 
under  construction  and  will  provide  drainage  for  1500  acres  of  land.  Spoon 
River  is  the  outlet  for  the  3.5  miles  of  ditches  of  the  district. 

The  Spoon  River  bottoms  are  subject  to  overflow  throughout  Fulton 
County.  The  overflowed  width  varies  considerably.  From  London  Mills  to 
Ellisville  it  is  about  one  mile  wide ;  from  this  point  to  Babylon  it  averages 
about  three-eighths  mile ;  thence  to  Seville  it  widens  to  about  one  and  one- 
half  miles,  below  which  point,  the  valley  is  less  than  one-quarter  mile  in 


SPOON    RIVER    WATERSHED  117 

width  to  Bernadotte;  here  it  widens  again  and  averages  one  and  one-half 
miles  to  Duncan  Mills,  where  it  joins  the  Illinois  River  overflow  which  is 
about  two  and  one-half  miles  wide. 

The  total  area  subject  to  overflow  along  Spoon  River  in  Peoria,  Knox, 
and  Fulton  counties  is  about  30,200  acres.  A  topographic  survey  of  the 
Spoon  River  valley  was  made  in  1910  and  1911  by  the  State  Geological 
Survey  in  cooperation  with  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey.  In  1914,  maps  of 
this  survey  showing  five-foot  contours  were  published ;  and  in  1916,  a  report 
on  the  reclamation  of  lands  subject  to  overflow  in  the  Spoon  River  valley, 
by  Jacob  A.  Harman,  was  issued  by  the  State  Geological  Survey  as  Bulletin 
No.  32. 

This  report  considers  the  valley  only  as  far  as  London  Mills,  and  gives 
the  area  subject  to  overflow  as  24,400  acres,  of  which  only  16,105  acres 
would  be  benefited  by  the  proposed  plans  of  reclamation,  the  remainder  being- 
contained  in  the  narrow  portions  of  the  valley  and  in  the  flood-ways  between 
levees  in  the  wider  portions.  One  of  the  essential  elements  of  the  report 
was  the  amount  of  straightening  of  the  crooked  channel  that  would  be 
profitable.  The  present  length  of  channel  from  the  mouth  of  the  river  to 
London  Mills  is  65.3  miles.  The  straightened  channel,  as  recommended, 
would  be  50  miles,  of  which  10.3  miles  represents  new  channel.  The  report 
states  that  a  channel  from  1600  to  3500  feet  wide  and  from  14  to  18  feet 
deep  would  be  required  to  carry  the  maximum  flood  water  within  its  banks. 
The  cost  of  such  a  channel  would  be  so  great  that  it  was  not  considered  in 
the  report.  The  plan  which  was  recommended  consisted  of  the  channel 
shortening  mentioned  above,  and  the  construction  of  levees  where  the  area 
protected  by  them  was  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  justify  the  cost  of  same. 

The  conclusions  given  in  the  report  are  as  follows : 

"1.  About  3830  acres  in  Units  1  and  2  can  be  completely  reclaimed 
at  a  cost  of  from  $5  to  $20  per  acre  less  than  a  number  of  levee  districts 
along  Illinois  River  now  under  construction. 

"2.  Unit  No.  4  will  have  practically  complete  reclamation  without  a 
pumping  plant,  which  may  be  later  added  if  experience  shows  its  need. 

"3.  The  straightening  of  the  stream  throughout  the  valley  will  increase 
the  carrying  capacity  of  the  channel  about  75  per  cent,  so  that  most  floods 
will  be  carried  within  the  banks  of  the  stream,  and  the  duration  of  the  high 
water  will  be  lessened  in  all  cases.  The  straightened  channel  will  widen  and 
have  a  greater  carrying  capacity  from  year  to  year. 

"4.     The  benefits  will  justify  the  expense  of  the  proposed  works." 

LTnit  No.  1  referred  to  above  contains  2280  acres  on  the  north  side  of 
Spoon  River  in  the  Illinois  River  overflow,  and  extends  upstream  about  2.75 
miles.  The  improvement  consists  of  straightening  the  channel,  constructing 
a  levee,  and  dredging  a  bluff  division  ditch.  The  average  cost  per  acre  is 
given  as  $23.40  (1916  prices). 


118  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

Unit  No.  2  includes  1550  acres  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river  from 
Unit  No.  1,  and  extends  to  within  about  one  mile  of  Duncan  Mills.  The 
improvements  recommended  are  the  same  as  for  Unit  No.  1,  and  the  cost 
per  acre  is  estimated  at  $31.74  (1916  prices).  An  effort  is  now  being  made 
to  organize  the  Spoon  River  Drainage  and  Levee  District  in  this  area,  and 
without  doubt  it  will  be  successful.  The  information  concerning  this  district 
was  obtained  too  late  to  show  on  the  map. 

Unit  No.  3  begins  where  No.  2  ends,  and  includes  the  entire  valley  to 
a  point  about  1.5  miles  south  of  Bernadotte,  and  contains  5890  acres.  The 
improvement  for  this  unit  consists  of  channel  straightening  only.  The  cost 
per  acre  is  given  as  $10.33  (1916  prices).  From  the  end  of  Unit  No.  3  to 
just  below  the  mouth  of  Put  Creek,  no  improvement  is  recommended. 

Unit  No.  4  begins  at  the  last-mentioned  point  and  extends  to  Babylon. 
There  are  2075  acres  here  which  can  be  reclaimed  at  an  average  cost  of 
$36.63  per  acre  ( 1916  prices).  Channel  improvement,  levee  construction  and 
a  diversion  channel  are  proposed  for  this  unit. 

For  a  mile  and  one-half  above  Babylon  no  improvement  is  recommended. 

Unit  No.  5  begins  at  that  point  and  ends  at  Fllisville.  There  are  610 
acres  in  this  unit,  for  which  channel  correction  alone  is  recommended.  The 
average  cost  per  acre  given  is  $16.92  (1916  prices). 

Unit  No.  6  comprises  3700  acres  between  Ellisville  and  London  Mills. 
Channel  straightening  is  recommended  at  an  average  cost  of  $8.70  per  acre. 

The  area  above  London  Mills  was  not  considered  in  the  report.  How- 
ever, channel  straightening  would  be  profitable  as  far  north  as  Stark  County, 
and  above  London  Mills  the  area  is  wide  enough  for  about  six  miles  to  war- 
rant levees  if  they  should  prove  necessary. 

There  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  reclamation  of  the  overflowed  land 
along  Spoon  River  would  be  profitable.  There  is  some  sentiment  toward 
improvement,  and  as  land  values  increase  this  sentiment  will  grow  and  will 
probably  result  in  reclamation. 

The  straightening  of  the  river  channel  should  be  carried  out  as  a  unit, 
which  can  be  brought  about  through  the  organization  of  an  outlet  district. 
The  simplification  of  the  drainage  laws  making  the  organization  of  such  a 
district  less  difficult  would  undoubtedly  assist  in  this  watershed  as  in  others 
having  a  similar  problem. 


CHAPTER  XV— CROOKED  CREEK  WATERSHED 

The  Crooked  Creek  watershed  covers  1360  square  miles  in  Warren, 
McDonough,  Hancock,  Adams,  Schuyler,  and  Brown  counties. 

On  all  old  maps,  the  name  of  the  stream  which  is  now  known  as 
Crooked  Creek,  is  the  "Lamoine  River."  Since  the  former  name  is  better 
known,  it  has  been  used  in  this  report. 

Crooked  Creek  rises  in  the  northeast  quarter  of  Hancock  County  and 
flows  southeasterly  to  the  Illinois  River,  about  five  miles  below  Beardstown. 
Its  principal  tributaries  are  East  Fork,  Troublesome  Creek,  Camp  Creek, 
Cedar  Creek,  and  Little  Missouri  Creek. 

The  watershed  has  good  natural  drainage,  and  the  upland  areas  have 
been  tile-drained  to  some  extent  without  the  aid  of  combined  drainage. 
There  are  no  organized  drainage  districts  within  the  watershed. 

Along  the  streams  the  topography  is  quite  broken  and  the  flood  run-off 
is  high  with  the  result  that  nearly  every  stream  has  some  bottom  land  subject 
to  overflow. 

That  the  creek  is  very  tortuous  may  be  inferred  from  its  name.  It  is 
also  badly  choked  with  logs,  brush,  fallen  trees,  and  gravel  carried  down  by 
the  flood  waters.  There  is  an  old  mill  dam  at  Birmingham  which  is  now  a 
complete  wreck  and  should  be  removed. 


Table  16. — Drainage  data  for  the  Crooked  Creek  ivatershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

Organized  drainage  districts 

None 

Acres 

Districts  being  organized 

None 

OverfloK'cd  areas 

1 

Along  Crooked  Creek  and  tributaries 

McDonough-Hancock- 
Schuyler 

25,180 

Upland  areas  needing  drainage 

2 

Sciota  Township 

McDonough 

2,000 

(119) 


120  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

The  creek  is  subject  to  overflow  throughout  its  length,  the  width  of 
overflow  varying  from  about  one-eighth  of  a  mile  at  the  upper  end  to  over 
a  mile  throughout  most  of  it.  The  map  shows  over  25,000  acres  of  such 
land.  Along  most  of  the  tributaries,  the  overflowed  area  averages  about 
one-eighth  of  a  mile  in  width.  If  the  main  stream  were  straightened,  most 
of  the  tributary  overflow  would  cease.  The  situation  along  Crooked  Creek 
is  serious.  Near  Birmingham  the  farmers  lost  four  crops  in  succession,  and 
sustained  a  partial  loss  the  fifth  year.  The  overflows  occur  at  no  certain 
time  of  the  year,  but  have  happened  during  all  months  of  the  year,  and  often 
twice  in  the  same  year.     The  resulting  financial  loss  is  heavy. 

The  people  of  this  community  feel  that  the  State  should  assist  them  in 
remedying  the  flood  situation.  Senator  W.  A.  Compton  of  Macomb  intro- 
duced a  resolution  in  the  1915  session  of  the  Legislature,  which  was  passed, 
directing  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  "to  investigate  and  consider  the 
merits  of  this  stream  and  its  environs,  and  to  recommend  a  series  of  improve- 
ments consistent  with  a  liberal  and  State-wide  investigation  of  waterways." 

The  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission  started  the  held  work  of  their  inves- 
tigation in  September,  1915.  Their  plans  were  to  make  a  survey  from 
Macomb  to  the  mouth  of  the  creek.  They  considered  the  East  Fork  as  the 
main  channel  of  Crooked  Creek,  rather  than  the  West  Fork,  which  is  taken 
as  the  main  channel  in  this  report. 

The  result  of  their  investigation  was  published  in  Bulletin  No.  17,  dated 
July  1,  1916.  Navigation  and  channel  improvements  were  the  chief  factors 
considered  in  this  bulletin,  and  flood  protection  and  land  reclamation  were 
only  of  secondary  interest. 

The  plans  proposed  in  the  bulletin  provide  for  an  8- foot  navigable 
channel  from  Macomb  to  Illinois  River.  This  was  to  be  accomplished  by 
dredging  and  by  the  construction  of  seven  locks  and  dams ;  also  the  con- 
struction of  levees,  located  from  100  to  250  feet  back  from  the  present  banks 
of  the  stream.  The  cost  of  this  was  estimated  at  $2,553,000,  or  $21,600 
per  mile.  This  project  would  protect  17,000  acres  of  bottom  land.  If  the 
total  cost  was  paid  by  the  land  benefited,  the  assessment  would  be  $150  an 
acre.  The  report  concludes  with  the  following  statement :  "In  view  of  the 
results  and  data  obtained  on  this  survey  and  investigation  and  the  estimated 
cost  of  improvement  based  thereon,  it  is  not  recommended  to  improve  the 
Lamoine  River  at  present." 

There  is  little  doubt  that,  from  the  standpoint  of  navigation,  it  would 
not  be  profitable  to  improve  this  stream,  but  from  the  standpoint  of  land 
reclamation,  it  would  be  very  profitable  to  straighten  the  stream  in  places 
and  construct  levees  where  necessary.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  Rivers 
and  Lakes  Commission  did  not  consider  land  reclamation  as  separate  from 
navigation.  However,  we  do  have  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  reclaiming  the 
bottom  land  in  the  Spoon  River  valley  just  to  the  north,  where  the  physical 


CROOKED    CREEK    WATERSKED  121 

conditions  are  very  similar.  There  the  average  cost  per  acre  of  reclamation 
where  levees  were  constructed  was  estimated  at  from  $23.40  to  $36.63  (1916 
prices),  depending  upon  the  size  of  the  several  districts.  Where  river 
straightening  alone  was  considered  the  cost  per  acre  varied  from  $10.33  to 
$16.92  per  acre  (1916  prices). 

Since  the  overflowed  area  along  Crooked  Creek  is  more  uniform  in 
width  than  along  Spoon  River,  it  is  doubtful  if  the  construction  of  levees 
would  prove  proli table,  and  it  would  require  a  detailed  study  of  the  valley 
to  determine  this  point ;  but  certainly  the  straightening  of  the  channel  is 
economically  feasible.  However,  the  improvement  should  be  made  as  a  unit 
as  it  would  do  very  little  good  to  straighten  stretches  here  and  there  along 
the  stream  without  having  a  sufficient  outlet  below.  To  accomplish  the 
reclamation  of  this  valley,  organization  on  a  large  scale  is  required — a  thing 
which  a  group  of  individuals  would  have  considerable  difficulty  in  effecting. 
Here,  as  in  other  valleys  of  the  State,  the  assistance  of  the  State  in  organ- 
izing a  district  and  in  planning  the  necessary  improvements  would  meet  with 
cooperation  from  the  landowners.  Without  some  outside  encouragement 
ana  assistance,  it  will  be  some  time  before  any  worth-while  improvements 
are  made  in  the  Crooked  Creek  vallev. 


CHAPTER  XVI— SALT  CREEK  WATERSHED 

The  Salt  Creek  watershed  contains  1870  square  miles  lying  in  McLean, 
DeWitt,  Macon,  Logan,  Menard,  Mason,  and  Tazewell  counties. 

Salt  Creek  has  its  source  in  southeastern  McLean  County,  flows  south- 
westerly and  very  close  to  the  watershed  line  through  McLean  and  DeWitt 
counties  to  a  point  south  of  Clinton ;  and  thence  in  a  general  westerly  direc- 
tion through  DeWitt  and  Logan,  and  between  Mason  and  Menard  counties 
to  its  junction  with  the  Sangamon  River.  The  main  tributaries  of  Salt 
Creek  are  North  Fork,  Lake  Fork,  Deer  Creek,  Kickapoo  Creek,  and  Sugar 
Creek. 

Twenty-seven  drainage,  districts  with  a  total  area  of  118,770  acres  have 
been  organized  in  this  watershed.  Seven  new  districts  are  in  various  stages 
of  formation  and  will  add  42,730  acres  to  the  above  total.  The  names  and 
areas  of  districts  are  given  in  Table  17.  Approximately  20,700  acres  of  over- 
flowed lands  lie  along  Sugar  and  Kickapoo  creeks.  Practically  all  of  the 
overflow  along  Salt  Creek  itself  has  been  taken  care  of. 

Through  the  organization  of  the  Salt  Creek  Special  District,  the  Creek 
has  been  straightened  from  its  mouth  to  within  a  mile  of  the  Logan  County 
line,  from  which  point  the  old  channel  is  fairly  straight  for  about  two  miles. 
This  is  the  second  largest  district  in  the  watershed  and  contains  12,400  acres. 
The  Creek  was  straightened  for  a  distance  of  about  1 1  miles  at  a  cost  of 
not  quite  $10  per  acre.  Very  little  of  the  old  channel  was  used.  It  was 
completed  in  1915.  The  district  has  been  very  successful  and  the  new 
channel  overflows  only  during  extreme  flood  periods.  The  land  has  in- 
creased from  $50  and  $100  per  acre  to  $100  and  $400  per  acre. 


Table  17. — Drainage  data  for  the  Salt  Creek  watershed 

Refer- 
ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

Organized  drainage  distn 

cts 

1 

EasterbroDk  Special  No.  1 

McLean 
McLean 
McLean 
McLean 
McLean 
McLean 
DeWitt 
DeWitt 
DeWitt 
DeWitt 
DeWitt 
DeWitt 

Acres 
5,920 

2 

Prairie  Creek 

6,810 

3 

Kickapo3 

3,210 

4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Fairview  (dissolved) 

Keenan-Nichols  Mutual 

Brokaw-Brining-Bailey-Linton 

Santa  Anna  No.  2 

Harmony 

Union  No.  1,  Clintonia  and  Wapella 

Union  No.  2,  Clintonia  and  Wapella. .      

Union  No.  1,  Clintonia 

1,840 
2,190 
3,010 
2.780 
2,980 
1 ,880 
1,440 
1 ,000 

12 

Clintonia  Special 

2.020 

(122) 


SALT    CREEK    WATERSHED 


123 


Table  17. — Drainage  data  for  the  Salt  Creek  watershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Barnett  Special 

Barnett  Mutual 

Maroa  No.  4 

Maroa  No.  2 

Maroa  No.  3 

Illini  Special 

North  Branch  Lake  Fork  Special 

Lake  Fork  Special 

Broadwell  Special  No.  1 

Upper  Salt  Creek 

Union  No.  1,  Chester  and  East  Lincoln. 

Prairie  Creek  No.  2 

Prairie  Creek  No.  1 

Mason  City  No.  1 

Salt  Creek  Special 


Total. 


County 


Acres 

DeWitt 

5,000 

DeWitt 

500 

Macon 

1,430 

Macon 

3,040 

Macon 

2,920 

Macon-Logan 

14,160 

Logan -Macon-De  Wit  i 

9,600 

Logan 

9,000 

Logan 

2,520 

Logan 

7,740 

Logan 

1,760 

Logan 

1,620 

Logan-Mason-Tazewel 

9,480 

Mason 

1,920 

Mason-Menard 

12,400 

Area 


118,770 


Districts  being  organized 


Bloomington  and  Normal  Sanitary. 

Sugar  Creek 

Necessary 

Equitable 

Midland J 

Deer"  Creek 

Lower  Salt  Creek 


Total 


McLean 

McLean 

McLean 

DeWitt 

DeWitt 

Logan 

Logan 


4,900 
14,840 

3,290 

1,300 
500 

7,000 
10,900 


42,730 


Overflowed  areas 


Kickapoo  River. 
Sugar  Creek .... 


Total . 


Logan-McLean 
Logan-McLean-Taze- 
well 


10,100 
10,600 


20,700 


Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


37        Northeast  of  Stanford McLean 


,000 


Mason  City  District  No.  I,  1,920  acres,  has  its  outlet  in  Salt  Creek,  south 
of  Mason  City. 

The  Lower  Salt  Creek  District  is  now  being  organized.  It  will  reclaim 
all  the  bottom  land  between  the  Salt  Creek  Special  District  and  the  Upper 
Salt   Creek   District.      Preliminary  plans   have  been   made   and   the  petition 


124  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

is  being  circulated.  As  proposed  it  contains  10,900  acres  and  will  connect 
on  the  east  with  the  Deer  Creek  District  which  has  its  petition  about  ready 
to  file.  The  latter  district  will  reclaim  7,000  acres  along  Deer  Creek,  and 
will  extend  to  the  east  line  of  Logan  County,  practically  to  its  source. 

The  Upper  Salt  Creek-  District,  which  is  now  letting  contracts,  contains 
7,740  acres,  which  is  the  extent  of  the  bottom  land  in  Logan  County. 

No  improvement  along  Salt  Creek  has  been  made  in  DeWitt  County. 
The  Creek  here  is  crooked  and  has  a  small  amount  of  overflow  at  times,  but 
not  enough  to  cause  serious  inconvenience. 

Southeast  of  Broadwell,  2,520  acres  of  upland  between  Salt  Creek  and 
Lake  Fork  are  being  successfully  drained  through  the  organization  of  the 
Broadwell  Special  District  No.  1. 

Along  Lake  Fork  and  Jones  Fork  is  located  another  "shoe  string"  dis- 
trict, which  was  completed  in  1908.  This  is  the  Lake  Fork  Special  and 
contains  9,000  acres.  The  stream  has  been  dredged  for  about  13  miles,  but 
the  improvement  does  not  give  protection  to  all  the  lands.  The  district  over- 
flows at  some  time  nearly  every  year,  and  the  bottom  land  crops  were 
drowned  out  in  1919. 

Abutting  the  Lake  Fork  Special  on  the  east  is  the  Illini  Special  Dis- 
trict, which  contains  14,160  acres  and  is  the  largest  district  in  the  watershed. 
Jones  Fork  flows  through  the  middle  of  the  area  and  is  the  outlet  for  the 
system. 

The  North  Branch,  Lake  Fork  Special  District  drains  some  9,600  acres 
north  of  the  Illini  District.  Both  discharge  their  waters  into  the  Lake  Fork 
District,  and  are  somewhat  responsible  for  the  overflow  which  occurs  there. 
To  the  west,  the  three  small  adjoining  districts  in  Maroa  Township,  Macon 
County,  contain  a  total  of  7,390  acres. 

North  of  the  City  of  Clinton,  DeWitt  Count}- ,  a  compact  group  of  seven 
upland  districts  with  a  total  area  of  15,420  acres  are  all  organized  under  the 
Farm  Drainage  Act.     Some  are  old  districts  and  their  ditches  need  cleaning. 

A  petition  is  being  circulated  for  the  organization  of  a  small  district  of 
500  acres  surrounding  Midland  City,  DeWitt  County. 

Around  the  village  of  DeWitt,  the  Equitable  District  is  being  promoted. 
It  will  contain  about  1,300  acres. 

At  the  extreme  east  end  of  the  watershed  in  McLean  County,  the  East- 
erbrook  Special  District  was  formed  in  1883.  Nine  miles  of  ditches  and 
three  miles  of  tile  drains  constitute  the  drainage  works.  There  are  5,920 
acres  in  the  district,  and  the  landowners  are  satisfied  with  the  benefits  which 
they  receive.  The  commissioners  give  the  value  of  the  land  as  from  $300 
to  $400  per  acre. 

Prairie  Creek  District,  6,810  acres,  has  been  organized  along  the  upper 
end  of  the  North  Fork  of  Salt  Creek,  and  is  operating  successfully. 

Northwest  of  Farmer  City,  Santa  Anna  No.  2,  containing  2,780  acres, 


SALT   CREEK   WATERSHED  125 

is  located.  Directly  north  of  this  area,  a  new  district  of  3,290  acres,  to  be 
known  as  Necessary  District,  is  being  organized. 

To  the  west  of  Farmer  City,  in  Rutledge  Township,  two  small  districts 
have  been  organized,  but  are  not  shown  on  the  map  as  the  boundaries  were 
not  obtained. 

Along  the  upper  end  of  Sugar  Creek,  the  Sugar  Creek  District  is  in 
process  of  organization,  and  to  the  north  of  this  area  a  sanitary  district  is 
proposed  for  the  cities  of  Bloomington  and  Normal.  The  former  district 
will  comprise  14,840  acres  and  the  latter  4,900  acres. 

West  of  Bloomington,  in  Allin  and  Danvers  townships,  an  area  of  about 
7,000  acres  needs  better  drainage  according  to  the  Farm  Adviser  of  McLean 
County. 

In  the  northwest  corner  of  Logan  County,  and  extending  into  Mason 
and  Tazewell  counties,  two  organized  districts  are  in  successful  operation. 
Prairie  Creek  District  No.  1  contains  9,480  acres  and  Prairie  Creek  District 
No.  2,  1,620  acres. 

The  overflow  along  Sugar  and  Kickapoo  Creeks  averages  about  one- 
half  mile  in  width.  Overflows  are  frequent  and  considerable  losses  occur 
yearly.  Along  Sugar  Creek  about  10,600  acres  and  along  Kickapoo  Creek 
about  10,100  acres  are  subject  to  overflow. 

Drainage  sentiment  in  Logan  County  is  especially  good,  and  the  land- 
owners along  Sugar  and  Kickapoo  Creeks  are  talking  organization  and 
without  doubt  districts  will  be  formed  along  these  streams  in  a  comparatively 
short  time. 

It  is  estimated  that  about  2,000  acres  within  organized  districts  can 
still  be  classed  as  unreclaimed  land,  which  amount  added  to  the  overflowed 
land  outside  of  districts  and  the  wet  upland,  makes  a  total  of  29,700  acres 
yet  to  be  reclaimed.  This  represents  16  per  cent  of  the  original  amount  of 
such  lands. 


CHAPTER  XVII— SANGAMON  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Sangamon  River  watershed  proper — exclusive  of  the  South  Eork 
and  Salt  Creek  watersheds — contains  2,340  square  miles  and  comprises  parts 
of  McLean,  Ford,  Champaign,  Piatt,  DeWitt,  Macon,  Moultrie,  Shelby, 
Christian,  Sangamon,  Morgan,  Logan,  Menard,  Mason,  and  Cass  counties. 

Sangamon  River  has  its  source  in  the  southeastern  part  of  McLean 
County,  and  flows  southeasterly  to  the  center  of  T.  22  N.,  R.  8  E.,  in  Cham- 
paign County;  thence  southwesterly  through  Monticello,  Piatt  County,  to 
Decatur ;  thence  westerly  to  a  point  near  Springfield ;  then  northwesterly 
to  its  junction  with  Salt  Creek;  and  thence  westerly  to  its  junction  with  the 
Illinois  about  8  miles  north  of  Beardstown.  The  drainage  data  for  this 
watershed  are  given  in  Table  18. 

The  river  is  very  crooked  and  its  bottom  land  is  overflowed  as  far  east- 
ward as  Champaign  County.  The  width  of  the  bottoms  varies  from  one-fourth 
to  one  mile,  and  the  total  area  subject  to  overflow  is  estimated  at  31,500 
acres.  This  is  exclusive  of  the  area  in  organized  districts,  and  those  in 
process  of  formation.  The  soil  is  extremely  fertile  and  crops  are  attempted 
every  year.  Along  the  upper  end  of  the  river,  crops  are  lost  only  occasion- 
ally ;  but  at  the  lower  end,  losses  are  more  frequent,  and  there  is  considerable 
sentiment  in  favor  of  improving  the  channel.  The  river  has  already  been 
straightened  from  the  mouth  of  Salt  Creek  westward  about  25  miles  to  the 
edge  of  the  Illinois  River  bottoms.  This  has  been  done  by  three  districts, 
namely,  the  Sangamon  River  Special,  the  Farmers,  and  the  Mason  and  Cass 
River  districts. 

In  1891,  the  Mason  and  Menard  Special  District  was  organized,  embrac- 
ing about  6,000  acres  of  bottom  land  from  the  mouth  of  Salt  Creek  westward 
for  seven  miles.  The  district  constructed  11  miles  of  ditches  using  Crane 
Creek  as  its  outlet.  According  to  one  of  the  commissioners  the  district  has 
been  overflowed  four  times  in  the  past  20  years.  The  ditches  of  this  district 
have  silted  up  rapidly  because  of  the  materials  brought  down  from  the  hills, 
and  have  had  to  be  cleaned  out  about  once  every  eight  years.  The  commis- 
sioners were  building  a  dredge  to  clean  the  ditches  at  the  time  this  section 
was  visited. 

Across  the  river  in  Menard  County,  the  Oakford  Special  District,  2,200 
acres,  was  organized  in  1890,  and  constructed  four  miles  of  ditches  emptying 
into  Tar  River.  Neither  of  these  districts  made  any  improvement  in  the 
river  channel. 

In  1903,  the  Sangamon  River  Special  District  was  organized  for  the 
purpose  of  straightening  the  river.  This  district  extends  from  near  the 
mouth  of  Salt  Creek  to  thewest  line  of  sections  7  and  18,  T.  19  N.,  R.  8  W., 
and  contains   17,280  acres.     Both  the  Mason  and  Menard  Special  and  the 

(126) 


SANGAMON   RIVER   WATERSHED 


127 


Table  18. — Drainage  data  for  the  Sangamon  River  ivatershed 


Organized  drainage  districts 


Sangamon 

Sangamon  and  Drummer 

Hillsbury  Slough  Special 

Wild  Cat  Special  (including  East  Bend  Mutual; 

Big  Slough  Special 

Lotus  Special 


Owl  Creek 

Blue  Ridge  Special 

Newcomb  Special 

Camp  Creek  Special 

Goose  Creek  No.  3  (In  Deland  Special) 

Goose  Creek  No.  4  (In  Deland  Special) 

DeWitt  Special  (In  Deland  Special)a 

Friends  Creek  Special 

Nixon  Special 

Union  No.  1,  Creek  and  Friends  Creek. ........ 

Goose  Creek  No.  1 

Goose  Creek  No.  2 

Wolf  Run 

Willow  Branch  No.  1 

Union  No.  5,  Friends  Creek  and  Willow  Branch. 

Friends  Creek  No.  4 

Willow  Branch  No.  3 


Friends  Creek  No.  1 .  . .  s :  . .  :  .  |   Macon 

Friends  Creek  No.  7 

Union  No.  8,  Friends  Creek  and  Maroa 

Union  No.  9,  Friends  Creek  and  Maroa 

Friends  Creek  No.  10 

Friends  Creek  No.  6 

Friends  Creek  No.  3 

Stephens  Creek 

Friends  Creek  No.  2 

Whitmore  No.  3 

Willow  Branch  No.  10,  By  User 

Willow  Branch  No.  4 

Oakley  No.  2 

Quickel  Mutual 

Union  No.  1,  Oakley  and  Long  Creek 

Union  No.  2,  Oakley  and  Long  Creek 

Mt.  Zion  Mutual 

Mt.  Zion  No.  1 

Sauner  Chapel  (dissolved) 

South  Macon  No.  1 

Pleasant  View  No.  3 

Pleasant  View  Mutual 

Pleasant  View  No.  1 

Pleasant  View  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Stonington  and  Pleasant  View. .  .  . 

Stonington  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Stonington  and  May 

Union  No.  1,  Stonington  and  Buckhart 


Acres 

McLean 

3,760 

Ford-Champaign 

7,720 

Champaign-Ford 

5,960 

Champaign-Ford 

10,400 

Champaign-Ford 

16,200 

Champaign-McLean- 

Piatt 

32,500 

Champaign 

2,803 

McLean-Piatt-DeWitt 

3,800 

Champaign-Piatt 

6,400 

Champaign-Piatt 

13,600 

Piatt 

1,740 

Piatt 

1,400 

DeWitt-Piatt 

9,540 

DeWitt-Piatt 

17,680 

DeWitt-Macon 

12,480 

DeWitt-Macon 

9,180 

Piatt 

1,000 

Piatt 

900 

Piatt 

5,500 

Piatt-Macon 

1,960 

Macon-Piatt 

1,200 

Macon 

660 

Piatt 

960 

Macon 

1,040 

Macon 

600 

Macon 

1,360 

Macon 

2,060 

Macon 

300 

Macon 

880 

Macon 

1,530 

Macon 

7,600 

Macon 

1,160 

Macon 

440 

Piatt 

1,940 

Piatt 

1,640 

Macon 

540 

Macon 

720 

Macon 

2,070 

Macon 

1,440 

Macon 

560 

Macon 

1,650 

Macon-Shelby 

5,030 

Macon 

800 

Macon 

920 

Macon 

1,080 

Macon 

1,520 

Macon 

1 ,300 

Christian-Macon 

1 ,820 

Christian 

2,400 

Christian 

1 ,660 

Christian 

4,500 

alncludes  Goose  Creek   Special. 


128 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  18, — Drainage  data  for  the  Sangamon  River  watershed — Continued 


Refer 
ence 
No. 


52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

73 
74 
75 

76 

77 
78 
79 


Name  of  district 


County 


Stonington  No.  3 

Stonington  No.  5 

Union  No.  1,  Mosquito  and  Stonington.  . . 

Mosquito  No.  2 

Union  No.  2,  Mosquito  and  Stonington 

Mosquito  No.  1 

Mosquito  Mutual  No.  1 

Union  No.  2,  Mosquito  and  Mt.  Auburn 

Mosquito  Mutual  No.  2 

Mutual,  Mosquito  and  Mt.  Auburn 

Mosquito  Mutual  No.  5 

Mosquito  Mutual  No.  3 

Mosquito  Mutual  No.  4 

Valley  Mound '. 

Union  No.  1,  Lanesville  and  Illiopolis. ... 

Central  Special 

Bulls  Eye  Special 

Hurds  Lake 

Long  Branch  Special 

Sangamon  River  Special 

Mason  and  Menard  Special  (Inside  Sangamon  River 

Special 

Oakford    pecial  (Inside  Sangamon  River  Special) . 

Middle  C  t  ek  (Richmond  Township) 

Farmers 

Spring  Lake  and  Wilcox  Special  (Inside  Mason  and 

Cass) 

Mason  and  Cass  River 

Clear  Lake  (Outside  of  No.  77) 

Lynchburg  and  Sangamon  Bottom  Drainage  and 

Levee 


Total 


Acres 

Christian 

2,140 

Christian 

1,840 

Christian 

2,250 

Christian 

940 

Christian 

1,080 

Christian 

1,540 

Christian 

800 

Christian 

440 

Christian 

430 

Christian 

1,200 

Christian 

710 

Christian 

900 

Christian 

1,170 

Sangamon 

640 

Sangamon 

10,500 

Mason 

20,000 

Mason 

7,200 

Mason 

4,080 

Mason 

7,040 

Cass-Mason-Menard 

17,280 

Mason-Menard 

Menard 

Cass 

750 

Cass 

9,100 

Mason 

Mason-Cass 

10,840 

Cass 

800 

Mason 

1,040 

Area 


320,560 


Districts  being  organised 


80 

81 
82 
83 
84 
85 


Trenkle  Slough  Special 

Deland  Special15 

Willow  Branch  No.  12 

Maroa  No.  5 

Union  No.  10,  Maroa  and  Friends  Creek 
North  Fork  Drainage  and  Levee 


Total 


Piatt-DeWitt-McLean  I 
Piatt 
Piatt 
Macon 
Macon 

Sangamon-Christian 
Macon 


19,860 

24,460 

2,960 

3,200 

2,020 

10,680 


63,180 


Overflozved  areas 


86 

87 


Along  Sangamon  River. 

Along  Sangamon  River. 

Total 


Champaign-Piatt- 
Macon 
Sangamon-Menard 


11,000 
20,500 


31.500 


bExcluding  area    in  Goose  Creek  No.  3  and  No.   4  and   Dewitt  Special. 


SANGAMON   RIVER  WATERSHED 


129 


Table  18. — Drainage  data  for  the  Sangamon  River  watershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Upland  areas  needing  drait 

age 

88 

Texas  Special  (Petition  denied) 

DeWitt-Macon 

Macon 

Macon 

Acres 
5,800 
3,800 
1,280 

89 
90 

Union  No.  3,  Oakley  and  Long  Creek 

In  Niantic  Township 

Total 

10,880 

Oak  ford  Special  districts  were  included  in  this  project.  In  straightening 
the  river,  very  little  of  the  old  crooked  channel  was  used. 

In  1908,  the  Farmers  District  with  9,100  acres  was  formed  for  con- 
tinuing the  straightening  of  the  channel  for  a  distance  of  about  five  miles 
downstream.  The  undertaking  has  been  quite  successful,  and  the  land  which 
was  formerly  worth  about  $10  an  acre  is  now  valued  at  $150. 

At  the  mouth  of  Middle  Creek  a  district  of  that  name  is  located,  and 
about  800  of  its  1,540  acres  are  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Farmers  District. 

The  Lynchburg  and  Sangamon  Bottom  Drainage  and  Levee  District  was 
organized  for  leveeing  the  stream  and  its  2,480  acres  are  protected  by  3.5 
miles  of  levee.  This  is  the  only  district  along  Sangamon  River  which  oper- 
ates a  pumping  plant.  About  1,500  acres  were  later  included  in  the  Mason 
and  Cass  River  District,  no  objection  being  raised  as  to  the  legality  of  land 
being  within  two  districts.  The  latter  district  had  for  its  object  the  straight- 
ening of  the  channel  to  provide  a  better  outlet  for  the  flood  waters  brought 
down  in  increased  volume  through  the  improved  channel  above. 

The  Spring  Lake  and  Wilcox  Special  District  dissolved  its  organization 
and  the  land  contained  in  it  is  included  in  the  Mason  and  Cass  River  District. 

The  Clear  Lake  Drainage  and  Levee  District  is  also  partly  within  the 
Mason  and  Cass  District,  and  was  organized  for  the  construction  of  a  levee. 
The  levee  which  was  built  is  not  high  or  strong  enough  and  the  commissioners 
are  now  planning  to  strengthen  it  and  in  all  probability  will  join  with  the 
proposed  Sangamon  Valley  District  (see  page  103)  in  the  construction 
of  a  pumping  plant. 

The  straightening  of  the  river  channel  by  the  three  districts  above  men- 
tioned has  been  of  great  benefit  to  all  the  bottom  lands.  Since  completion 
the  channel  has  almost  doubled  in  width  due  to  the  eroding  action  of  the 
water  caused  by  its  increased  velocity.  However,  at  the  mouth  of  the  river 
the  flood  water  spreads  over  the  Illinois  River  bottoms  and  the  channel  is 
rapidly  silting  up  so  that  the  districts  at  the  lower  end  do  not  have  as  free 
an  outlet  as  formerly.     A  commissioner  of  the  most  westerly  district  advises 


130  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

that,  while  a  few  years  ago  they  were  able  to  haul  coal  to  the  pumping  plant 
in  barges,  now  the  channel  is  so  filled  with  snags,  tree  trunks,  and  drift  that 
for  the  past  two  years  they  have  been  unable  to  do  this.  Because  of  back- 
water from  the  Illinois,  it  will  be  difficult  to  prevent  this  unless  frequent 
dredging  is  resorted  to. 

North  of  Sangamon  River  in  Mason  County,  50,000  acres  of  the  upland 
area  are  within  organized  districts.  These  are  simply  drainage  districts  and 
were  all  organized  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  All  are  old  and  have 
given  and  are  giving  satisfactory  drainage,  and  the  land  is  valued  at  from 
$150  to  $200  an  acre.     There  is  no  need  for  further  drainage  in  this  county. 

Aside  from  the  river  districts  mentioned,  there  are  no  other  districts  in 
the  Sangamon  watershed  in  Cass  and  Menard  counties.  The  uplands  are 
rolling  and  have  satisfactory  natural  drainage.  Along  the  river  in  Menard 
County  approximately  6,000  acres  of  land  are  subject  to  overflow,  most  of 
which  can  be  reclaimed  by  straightening  the  channel  and  using  the  waste 
material  for  the  construction  of  levees  as  far  back  from  the  banks  as  an 
excavating  machine  can  deposit  it.  This  will  probably  not  take  care  of 
extreme  floods  and  crops  may  still  be  lost  occasionally,  but  the  benefits 
derived  will  be  greater  than  the  cost  of  the  improvement.  The  width  of 
overflow  varies  from  one-quarter  to  one  mile. 

In  Sangamon  County,  about  14,500  acres  of  bottom  land  are  inundated 
during  flood  periods.  The  reclamation  problem  here  is  more  difficult  because 
of  the  waterworks  dam  north  of  Springfield  and  the  seven  large  railroad 
bridges  near  that  place.  The  landowners  in  Macon,  Sangamon,  and  Menard 
counties  have  held  several  meetings  to  make  plans  for  channel  improvement, 
but  thus  far  nothing  definite  has  resulted  so  far  as  the  entire  stretch  of  river 
is  concerned.  But  between  Roby  and  a  point  south  of  Niantic,  the  land- 
owners are  now  organizing  the  North  Fork  Outlet  District,  and  the  com- 
missioners have  been  appointed.  The  plans  are  to  dredge  practically  a  new 
channel  for  the  stream  as  was  done  farther  west.  There  are  10,680  acres 
within  the  district,  exclusive  of  the  area  in  the  Valley  Mound  Drainage 
District,  640  acres,  which  was  organized  some  years  ago.  It  is  believed 
that  the  landowners  below  will  continue  the  improvement  at  least  as  far  as 
the  mouth  of  the  South  Fork. 

The  upland  area  between  Stonington,  Mt.  Auburn,  and  Blue  Mound, 
in  Christian  and  Macon  counties,  is  almost  entirely  within  drainage  districts, 
which  drain  into  the  Sangamon  either  through  Buckhart  Creek  or  Mosquito 
Creek.  There  are  21  districts  in  this  group  with  a  combined  acreage  of 
30,640  acres,  the  largest  containing  4,500  acres.  All  were  organized  under 
the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  Friction  has  arisen  among  some  of  the  districts 
because  the  upper  ones  are  using  as  outlets  the  ditches  of  the  lower  ones 
which  are  not  large  enough  to  carry  the  additional  water.     Most  of  the  lower 


SANGAMON   RIVER   WATERSHED  131 

districts  have  enlarged  or  are  enlarging  their  ditches  and  in  some  cases  the 
upper  districts  are  sharing  the  cost. 

In  the  northeast  corner  of  Sangamon  County,  the  Union  District  No.  1  of 
Lanesville  and  Illiopolis,  comprising  10,500  acres  is  under  construction.  A 
large  amount  of  private  tiling  has  been  done  in  Sangamon  County  and  the 
upland  areas  are  in  no  need  of  organized  drainage. 

West  of  Niantic,  a  small  district  covering  about  two  sections  is  being 
considered.  In  fact  a  preliminary  map  has  been  prepared  giving  proposed 
boundary,  but  this  area  was  listed  as  one  needing  drainage  rather  than  one  in 
process  of  organization. 

South  of  Decatur  in  Macon  County,  only  a  small  amount  of  combined 
drainage  has  been  carried  out.  Aside  from  the  districts  previously  men- 
tioned in  the  extreme  southwest  corner  of  the  county,  there  are  three  others 
with  a  combined  area  of  2,290  acres,  and  a  fourth,  which  extends  into  Shelby 
County,  with  an  area  of  5,030,  The  latter  is  the  old  Sauner  Chapel  District 
which  has  dissolved  its  organization.  The  smaller  districts  were  organized 
under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  and  the  records  of  their  organization  were 
difficult  to  obtain.  There  are  probably  several  other  small  mutual  and  town- 
ship districts  in  this  area  which  are  not  shown. 

From  a  point  below  Niantic  eastward  through  Macon,  Piatt,  and  Cham- 
paign counties,  no  districts  have  been  organized  for  reclaiming  the  overflowed 
land  in  the  Sangamon  River  bottoms.  The  overflowed  portion  varies  from 
quarter  of  a  mile  to  over  half  a  mile  in  width,  and  contains  approximately 
11,000  acres.  A  dam  is  being  constructed  across  the  river  at  Decatur  to 
impound  water  for  the  use  of  the  city.  This  will  tend  to  equalize  the  stream 
flow  below  and  will  retard  the  flow  from  above. 

In  Macon  County,  east  of  Decatur,  four  small  districts  with  a  total  area 
of  4,770  acres  drain  into  Sangamon  River.  These  districts  have  not  been 
entirely  successful  according  to  the  commissioners  though  they  state  that 
the  present  value  of  the  land  is  from  $300  to  $350  an  acre.  The  area  is  flat 
upland  with  little  natural  drainage  and  in  excessive  rainstorms  the  land  is 
flooded.  Such  was  the  case  in  1909,  1917,  and  1919.  Adjoining  these  areas, 
there  is  an  area  of  3,800  acres  which  is  not  organized.  A  new  district  has 
been  proposed  here,  but  the  opposition  has  thus  far  been  too  strong.  Event- 
ually this  will  be  done.  In  addition  to  the  districts  shown  on  the  map,  there 
is  Oakley  District  No.  1,  organized  in  1893  and  containing  1,000  acres,  the 
boundaries  of  which  were  not  obtained. 

Between  Cerro  Gordo  and  Monticello,  Willow  Branch  Township  Dis- 
tricts No.  4  and  No.  10  are  located.  Number  4  contains  1,640  acres  and 
Number  10,  which  is  a  User  district,  1,940  acres.  The  area  to  the  east  is 
now  being  organized  into  District  No.  12,  and  includes  about  2,960  acres. 

Fully  75  per  cent  of  the  area  north  of  the  river  between  Decatur  and 
Monticello  is  either  within  districts  or  is  now  being  incorporated  within  dis- 


132  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

tricts.  There  are  twenty-four  organized  districts,  totaling  84,970  acres,  and 
four  being  organized,  containing  49,540  new  acres,  making  a  grand  total  of 
134,510  acres  in  an  area  of  about  290  square  miles.  Only  the  larger  of  the 
districts  will  be  discussed  individually. 

Six  miles  northeast  of  Decatur  is  the  Stephens  Creek  District,  7,600 
acres,  which  has  proved  a  satisfactory  undertaking.  An  equal  area  to  the 
northeast  is  divided  among  eight  small  township  districts  organized  under 
the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  Their  names  and  acreage  are  given  in  Table  18. 
To  the  northwest,  Maroa  District  No.  5,  3,200  acres,  and  Union  District 
No.  10  of  Maroa  and  Friends  Creek,  2,020  acres,  have  about  completed  their 
organization.     All  of  these  districts  have  accomplished  their  purpose. 

Then  comes  four  large  districts  along  the  watershed  line.  These  are  the 
Union  No.  1,  Creek  and  Friends  Creek,  9,180  acres,  the  Nixon  Special, 
12,480  acres,  the  Friends  Creek  Special,  17,680  acres,  and  the  DeWitt 
Special,  9,540  acres.  All  were  organized  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act; 
the  last  three,  being  special  districts,  were  formed  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  DeWitt  County  Court.  The  value  of  the  land  in  these  districts  is  given 
by  the  commissioners  as  $400  an  acre,  though  they  state  that  the  projects 
have  been  only  partially  successful.  The  second  and  third  mentioned  are 
not  yet  completed.  During  intensive  rainstorms  the  land  is  flooded,  since  it 
is  so  level  that  the  water  can  not  flow  over  the  surface,  but  stands  until 
drained  by  the  tile  drains.  To  the  west  of  these  four  districts  is  a  tract  of 
about  6,000  acres  which  needs  better  drainage.  The  formation  of  the  Texas 
Special  District  was  attempted  in  this  area,  but  the  opposition  was  too  strong, 
and  the  petition  was  denied  by  the  court. 

The  entire  area  between  Monticello  and  Farmer  City  is  being  organized 
into  two  large  districts.  The  one  to  the  south,  the  Deland  Special,  contains 
24,460  acres  exclusive  of  the  area  in  the  DeWitt  Special  and  the  Goose  Creek 
Districts  Nos.  3  and  4,  which  are  included  within  the  boundaries  of  the  new 
district.  The  DeWitt  Special — the  most  easterly  of  the  four  districts  men- 
tioned above — is  entirely  successful  according  to  its  commissioners,  but  the 
new  district  will  open  up  Goose  Creek  which  is  the  outlet  of  the  former 
district  and  hence  it  has  been  included.  The  Goose  Creek  Special  District 
was  organized  in  1910  and  contains  2,000  acres,  but  since  it  was  included  in 
the  DeWitt  Special  which  was  later  organized,  and  is  now  included  in  the 
new  district,  it  is  not  shown  on  the  map.  The  principal  purpose  of  the  new 
district  is  to  dredge  Goose  Creek  and  thus  provide  a  much  needed  outlet  to 
the  lands  both  within  and  without  the  districts.  The  two  Goose  Creek  Dis- 
tricts which  are  included  within  the  Deland  Special  are  too  small  for  com- 
prehensive work,  and  are  not  free  from  overflow  due  to  excessive  precipi- 
tation.    The  proposed  work  will  be  of  considerable  benefit  to  them. 

About  six  miles  west  of  Monticello  there  is  a  group  of  eight  di-stricts, 
the  largest  of  which  contains  5,500  acres,  with  a  combined  area  of  13,220 


SANGAMON   RIVER  WATERSHED  133 

acres.  These  are  operating  satisfactorily  with  the  possible  exception  of  the 
northern  ones  which  drain  into  Goose  Creek. 

The  second  new  district  mentioned  above  is  the  Trenkle  Slough  Special 
which  borders  on  the  Deland  Special  to  the  south.  There  are  19,860  acres 
of  new  area  in  this  tract,  and  about  3,000  acres  which  are  in  the  Blue  Ridge 
Special  District.  The  later  was  organized  in  1915,  but  no  work  has  been 
done  and  it  is  now  to  be  partly  included  in  the  Trenkle  Slough  District. 

To  the  northeast  lies  the  Lotus  Special  with  32,500  acres  and  adjoining 
it  on  the  southeast  the  Owl  Creek  and  the  Newcomb  Special  Districts,  with 
2,800  and  6,400  acres,  respectively.  The  Owl  Creek  District  was  organized 
in  1914  when  the  land  was  valued  at  $250  an  acre.  Now  the  land  is  priced 
at  about  $400  an  acre.  However,  all  of  this  increase  is  not  the  result  of 
drainage. 

Along  Drummer  Creek,  south  of  Gibson  City,  7,720  acres  are  included 
in  the  Sangamon  and  Drummer  District,  which  was  completed  in  1909.  The 
commissioners  advise  that  the  district  should  be  enlarged  by  annexing  some 
land  which  drains  through  the  district. 

The  Sangamon  District,  3,760  acres,  straddles  the  river  at  its  source  in 
McLean  County.  The  channel  has  been  dredged  and  provides  a  good  outlet 
for  the  tile  drains. 

At  the  extreme  upper  end  of  the  watershed  in  Champaign  County,  three 
large  districts  give  successful  drainage  to  the  level  prairie  lands.  The  Hills- 
bury  Slough  Special,  5,960  acres,  lies  along  the  former  slough  of  that  name ; 
the  Wild  Cat  Special,  10,400  acres,  which  includes  the  East  Bend  Mutual 
drains  into  the  Sangamon  River  through  Wild  Cat  Slough ;  and  the  Big 
Slough  Special,  16,200  acres,  completes  the  drainage  of  this  section  of  the 
watershed.  The  last-named  district  was  organized  in  1886,  and  has  con- 
structed 25  miles  of  open  ditch  and  laid  six  miles  of  large  tile.  The  Wild 
Cat  District  was  formed  in  1898,  and  has  nine  miles  of  ditches. 

Farther  south,  between  Bondville  and  Mahomet,  13,600  acres  are  con- 
tained in  the  Camp  Creek  Special,  which  completed  its  ditches  in  1911,  and 
is  giving  satisfactory  drainage  to  the  land. 

To  sum  up  the  drainage  situation  in  this  watershed : 

1.  Seventy-nine  districts  have  been  organized  with  a  combined  area  of 
320,560  acres,  which  represents  21.4  per  cent  of  the  watershed  area. 

2.  Six  new  districts  are  being  formed,  which  will  add  63,180  acres  to 
the  area  already  organized.  This  acreage  represents  4.2  per  cent  of  the 
entire  watershed  area.  The  Sangamon  River  watershed  ranks  fifth  among 
the  watersheds  of  the  State  as  regards  new  drainage  districts  in  process  of 
organization. 

3.  Most  of  the  31,500  acres  of  overflowed  land  in  the  Sangamon  River 
valley  can  be  partially  if  not  completely  reclaimed. 

4.  On  the  map  are  shown  10,880  acres  of  wet  uplands.     While  this 


134  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

phase  of  the  investigation  is  incomplete,  it  is  doubtful  if  there  is  much  more 
land  of  this  classification. 

5.  There  are  yet  to  be  reclaimed,  or  improved  in  case  of  the  upland 
areas,  29,700  acres  which  represents  16  per  cent  of  the  area  originally  in 
need  of  drainage. 

The  upland  areas  can  be  taken  care  of  very  easily,  and  will  be  as  soon  as 
the  requisite  majority  of  the  landowners  realize  the  economic  benefits  to  be 
derived  from  drainage.  However,  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom  land  is  a 
more  difficult  problem.  The  valley  is  too  narrow  in  most  places  for  levees — 
except  such  as  can  be  built  from  the  material  excavated  from  the  channel — 
and  hence  relief  can  be  secured  only  by  channel  improvement.  The  effect 
of  such  improvement  is  usually  to  give  relief  to  the  upper  end  of  a  watershed 
at  the  expense  of  the  lower  portion ;  but  the  Sangamon  watershed  is  long 
and  narrow  and  lends  itself  exceptionally  well  to  channel  straightening.  As 
explained  more  fully  in  Chapter  XXX,  an  improvement  of  this  kind  must 
not  be  planned  piecemeal,  and  construction  should  be  carried  out  from  the 
mouth  of  the  stream  up.  To  organize  this  valley  from  the  mouth  of  Salt 
Creek  to  the  west  end  of  the  proposed  North  Fork  District  is  a  large  under- 
taking and  under  present  conditions  is  almost  impossible.  Two  things  are 
needed:  (1)  a  better  understanding  of  the  problems  involved  and  of  the 
economic  aspects  of  the  case  by  the  landowners,  and  (2)  an  easier  method 
of  organizing  large  districts  of  this  kind  under  the  law. 


CHAPTER  XVIII— BIG  VERMILION  WATERSHED1 

The  Big  Vermilion  watershed  covers  1,250  square  miles  lying  in  Living- 
ston, Ford,  Champaign,  Vermilion,  and  Iroquois  counties. 

Vermilion  River  rises  in  Ford  County  and  flows  southeasterly  through 
Vermilion  County  and  into  the  State  of  Indiana  where  it  empties  into  Wa- 
bash River. 

More  agricultural  drainage  has  been  done  in  this  watershed  than  in  any 
other  within  the  State.  Sixty-three  districts  have  been  organized,  containing 
a  combined  area  of  317,860  acres,  with  an  average  of  255  acres  per  square 
mile  of  watershed  area. 

This  is  the  highest  watershed  south  of  Illinois  River  and  the  topography 
is  very  flat,  except  in  the  southeast  corner  around  Danville.  There  is  little 
surface  drainage,  and  formerly  the  rain  water  stood  on  the  land  until  it 
evaporated  or  found  its  way  slowly  through  the  soil  to  the  shallow  natural 
channels.  A  large  part  of  the  area  could  not  be  farmed  before,  the  ditches 
were  dug.  Now  it  is  considered  the  best  farming  land  in  the  State.  This 
has  been  accomplished  by  hundreds  of  miles  of  open  ditches  and  thousands 
of  miles  of  tile  drains  leading  to  them. 

There  are  no  overflowed  areas  in  this  watershed  such  as  are  found  in 
the  watersheds  to  the  south.  Along  Vermilion  River  small  areas  here  and 
there  are  occasionally  overflowed  for  short  periods,  but  these  areas  are  too 
small  and  too  scattered  to  present  a  real  overflow  problem.  Hence  no  such 
areas  are  listed  in  this  report. 

Some  of  the  areas  away  from  the  streams  suffer  through  excessive  rain- 
storms, and  by  comparison  with  the  thoroughly  tiled  lands  within  districts 
may  be  called  wet,  yet  crops  are  raised  yearly  on  all  the  land,  and  it  has  a 
market  value  of  around  $200  an  acre,  while  the  drained  land  is  worth  from 
$350  to  $400  an  acre. 

The  work  of  all  the  districts  has  been  very  similar,  usually  the  dredging 
of  a  main  ditch  through  the  lower  portion  of  the  district,  and  in  the  larger 
areas  the  addition  of  several  laterals,  which  frequently  take  the  form  of  large 
tile  drains. 

The  portion  of  the  watershed  in  Livingston,  Ford,  and  Champaign 
counties  is  almost  solid  with  districts,  which  frequently  overlap  somewhat. 
Thirty-six  of  the  sixty-three  districts  are  in  these  counties,  and  have  a  total 
area  of  235,600  acres  which  represents  74  per  cent  of  the  drainage  work  done 
in  the  watershed.  One  of  these,  the  Big  Four  District  in  Ford  and  Living- 
ston counties,  contains  43,320  acres ;  another,  the  Beaver  Lake  District  in 
Champaign  County,  embraces  32,750  acres ;    a  third,  the  Spoon  River  Dis- 


iFlows  into  Wabash  River. 

(135) 


136 


LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  19. — Drainage  data  for  the  Vermilion  River  watershed 


Organized  drainage  districts 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 


Little  Lyman 

Lyman  Township 

Wall  Township 

Big  Four 

Sugar  Creek 

Beneficial 

Hoopeston 

Bridgman 

Pleasant  Hill 

Ross  No.  2 

Alvin 

Green 

Union  No.  1,  Newell  and  Ross 

Grape  Creek 

Sinking  Hole 

Ross  No.  1 

Henning 

Bean  Creek 

Jamesburg  Special 

Eight  Mile 

Union  No.  2,  Oakwood  and  Pilot 

Oakwood  No.  7 

Oakwood  No.  1 

Oakwood  No.  8 

Pleasant  View 

Jordon  Special 

Union  No.  1,  Vance  and  Catlin 

Vance  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Vance  and  Sidell 

Homer  No.  1 

Union  No.  2,  Homer  and  Sidney 

Union  No.  3,  Homer  and  Sidney 

Sidney  No.  1 

Schinder 

Wrisk 

South  Fork 

Union  No.  1,  Philo  and  Sidney 

Union  No.  1,  Oakwood  and  Vance. . . 

Special  No.  1  (Mutual) 

St.  Joseph  No.  8 

Bailey  Branch 

Union  No.  2,  St.  Joseph  and  Ogden . . 

St.  Joseph  No.  6 

Silver  Creek 

Special  No.  3,  Urbana  and  St.  Joseph 

St.  Joseph  No.  4 

Saline  Branch 

Stanton  Special 

Stanton  No.  1 

Union  No.  2,  Somer  and  Stanton 

Hensley 

Beaver  Lake 

Salt  Fork 


Acres 

Ford  720 

Ford-Livingston  10,680 

Ford  10,000 

Ford-Livingston  43,320 

Ford-Vermilion  6,240 

Vermilion  2,600 

Vermilion  6,600 

Vermilion  3,190 

Vermilion  1,990 

Vermilion  2,300 

Vermilion  3,930 

Vermilion  540 

Vermilion  2,570 

Vermilion  2,950 

Vermilion  1,700 

Vermilion  1,420 

Vermilion  890 

Vermilion  5,400 

Vermilion  4,310 

Vermilion  5,830 

Vermilion  1,020 

Vermilion  980 

Vermilion  1,720 

Vermilion  930 

Vermilion  2,520 

Vermilion  8,390 

Vermilion  2,120 

Vermilion  330 

Vermilion-Champaign  10,100 

Champaign-Vermilion  4,120 

Champaign  4,120 

Champaign  1,400 

Champaign  2,320 

Champaign  560 

Champaign  1 ,800 

Champaign  3,200 

Champaign  2,320 

Vermilion  740 

Vermilion-Champaign  600 

Champaign  910 

Champaign  1 ,600 

Champaign  1,720 

Champaign  800 

Champaign  5,290 

Champaign  6,000 

Champaign  4,960 

Champaign  18,900 

Champaign  3,980 

Champaign  2,070 

Champaign  9,330 

Champaign  5,450 

Champaign  32,750 

Champaign  7,280 


BIG   VERMILION    WATERSHED 


137 


Table  19. — Drainage  data  for  the  Vermilion  River  zuatershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


54 
55 
56 

57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 


West  Branch 

Dillsbury  Special 

Flatville  Special 

Kerr- Compromise 

Spoon  River 

Union  No.  1,  Ogden  and  Stanton. 

Conkey  Branch 

Willow  Branch  (Inside  No.  62)  .  . 

Stony  Creek 

Oakwood  No.  9 


Total. 


Champaign 

Champaign 

Champaign 

Champaign 

Champaign 

Champaign 

Champaign-Vermilion 

Champaign 

Vermilion-Champaign 

Vermilion 


Acres 
1,880 
3,300 
7,260 
1,880 

23,460 
2,150 
3,260 

'  7,010 
150 


317,860 


Districts  being  organised 


64 
65 
66 


Cheney  ville 

Union  No.  1,  Grant  and  Ross  Townhsip. 
Johnson 


Total. 


Vermilion 
Vermilion 
Vermilion 


1,600 
1,160 
4,700 


7,460 


Overfloived  areas 


None. 


Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

Ford  Special  (Killed  by  Supreme  Court) 

Area  in  Antioch  Dist.,  which  failed  to  organize.  . .  . 
Area  south  of  Pleasant  Hill  Dist.,  Ross  Township.  . 

Area  in  Bismark  Dist.  which  failed  to  organize 

Area  along  Stony  Creek  Northeast  of  Danville 

Addition  to  Stony  Creek  district 

Ford 

Vermilion 

Vermilion 

Vermilion 

Vermilion 

Vermilion-Champaign 

7,700 
2,250 
2,700 
1,540 
14,000 
6,600 

Total..    ..' 

34,790 

trict  in  Champaign  County,  covers  23,460  acres;  and  there  are  two  others 
with  a  little  over  10,000  acres  each. 

Southeast  of  Rantoul  will  be  noticed  an  area  of  some  25  square  miles 
which  is  not  organized.  This  is  the  area  which  was  in  the  Lower  Salt  Fork 
District,  whose  organization  was  invalidated  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

Along  the  southern  edge  of  the  watershed  is  a  row  of  seven  districts, 
covering  a  total  of  28,110  acres,  the  largest  of  which  contains  10,100  acres. 
They  provide  adequate  drainage  for  the  flatter  areas  south  of  the  Salt 
Fork. 


138  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

Six  miles  north  of  Danville,  a  tract  of  17,850  acres  between  the  Middle 
and  North  Forks  of  Vermilion  River  is  drained  through  the  ditches  of  five 
districts.  Along  the  Illinois-Indiana  State  line  there  are  five  other  small 
districts,  and  some  seven  or  eight  isolated  districts  are  scattered  through 
Vermilion  County. 

Three  districts  are  being  organized  in  this  watershed,  all  in  Vermilion 
County.  The  largest  of  these  is  known  as  the  Johnson  District  and  proposes 
to  give  drainage  to  4,700  acres  along  the  Chicago  and  Eastern  Illinois  Rail- 
road between  Ellis  and  Reilly  stations.  East  of  Cheneyville  the  second  pro- 
posed district  is  situated.  It  proposes  to  benefit  some  1,600  acres  and  will 
probably  be  called  the  Cheneyville  District.  Union  No.  1  of  Grant  and  Ross 
townships  is  the  third  new  district  with  1,160  acres. 

In  an  area  such  as  is  covered  by  this  watershed,  it  is  difficult  to  forecast 
the  drainage  development.  To  the.  casual  observer  there  is  no  further  need 
of  drainage,  and  the  average  landowner  will  corroborate  this  fact.  How- 
ever, with  past  performance  in  mind,  where  land  worth  $250  an  acre  has 
been  more  completely  drained  with  profit,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  there  will  be 
much  more  drainage  work  done  in  the  future. 

Six  areas  are  shown  on  the  map  as  in  need  of  better  drainage.  The  first 
of  these  is  around  Paxton.  Some  years  ago,  an  attempt  was  made  to  organ- 
ize the  Ford  Special  District  here,  but  it  was  not  successful,  due  to  a  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  Probably  the  organization  of  the  7,700  acres  in  this 
tract  will  be  more  successful  later. 

Likewise,  an  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  to  combine  2,250  acres  in 
the  Antioch  District  in  Vermilion  County. 

Southeast  of  Alvin,  the  area  in  the  Bismark  District,  which  failed  to 
organize,  is  shown. 

The  largest  of  the  wet  areas  is  along  Stoney  Creek,  northeast  of  Dan- 
ville. The  boundaries  as  shown  on  the  map  are  only  approximate.  Accord- 
ing to  information  obtained  from  an  engineer  familiar  with  the  situation, 
Stony  Creek  should  be  dredged. 

To  sum  up  the  present  situation  in  the  Vermilion  watershed : 

1.  The  63  districts  include  317,860  acres,  representing  39.7  per  cent  of 
the  watershed  area.    The  name  and  area  of  each  district  is  given  in  Table  19. 

2.  Three  districts  with  a  combined  area  of  7,460  acres  which  are  being 
formed,  represent  0.9  per  cent  of  the  watershed. 

3.  On  the  map  are  indicated  34,790  acres  of  land  which  needs  better 
drainage. 

4.  There  may  be  several  small  organized  districts,  the  locations  of  which 
were  not  obtained. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  said  that  the  drainage  work  done  in  this  water- 
shed has  been  very  successful.  For  the  most  part  the  districts  have  had  no 
serious  difficulties.     Of  course  the  ditches  have  had  to  be  cleaned  out  occa- 


BIG  VERMILION    WATERSHED  139 

sionally  and  in  a  few  instances  have  had  to  be  enlarged.  The  cost  of  drain- 
age here  has  been  much  less  than  that  in  the  western  and  southern  parts  of 
the  State,  where  levees  and  pumping  plants  are  required. 

One  result  of  drainage  in  this  watershed  is  a  much  smaller  low-water 
flow  during  the  summer  months.  The  cities  which  depend  upon  the  river  for 
domestic  water  supply  and  for  the  dilution  of  sewage  are  adversely  affected 
by  extensive  farm  drainage. 

Since  the  effect  of  drainage  is  to  lower  the  level  of  the  ground  water, 
and  since  the  principal  source  of  summer  stream  flow  is  the  ground  water,  it 
naturally  follows  that  the  more  the  drainage  the  less  the  summer  flow.  This 
is  a  matter  which  should  be  given  serious  consideration  by  engineers,  and  if 
possible  a  solution  found  for  the  difficulty. 


CHAPTER  XIX— WABASH  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Wabash  River  watershed  in  Illinois  embraces  2,680  square  miles  of 
territory  lying  in  Champaign,  Vermilion,  Edgar,  Clark,  Crawford,  Lawrence, 
Richland,  Edwards,  White,  and  Wabash  counties. 

Wabash  River  forms  the  east  boundary  line  of  the  State  from  a  point 
east  of  Marshall  in  Clark  County  to  its  junction  with  the  Ohio  River  near 
Shawneetown. 

The  principal  tributaries  are  Little  Vermilion  River,  and  Brouillett, 
Sugar,  Big,  Mill,  and  Bonpas  creeks. 

Table  20  gives  the  drainage  data  for  this  watershed.  It  will  be  observed 
that  62  districts  with  a  combined  area  of  207,520  acres  have  been  formed, 
and  that  seven  are  now  in  process  of  organization,  which  if  successful  will 
add  42,750  acres  to  the  total.  These  together  represent  14.7  per  cent  of  the 
watershed  area.  The  drainage  problem  here  is  represented  by  48,920  acres 
of  overflowed  lands  in  the  river  bottoms  and  along  Bonpas  Creek.  In  addi- 
tion 10,220  acres  of  wet  upland  area  require  attention. 

Table  20. — Drainage  data  for  the  Wabash  River  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organised  drainage  districts 


9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 


Little  Vermilion  Special 

Union  No.  2,  Carroll,  Jamaica  and  Sidell.  . 
Union  No.  1,  Carroll  and  Jamaica. ...... 

Jamaica  Special 

Fayette  Special 

Butler  Branch 

Fairview  Special 

Maple  Grove 

McKendree 

Vermilion  Grove 

Prairie  No.  2 

Prairie  No.  1 

Ross  No.  1 

Young  America  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Shiloh  and  Edgar 

Shiloh  No.  3 

Shiloh  Special 

Burnham  Special 

Buck  No.  7 

Sims  Special,  Shiloh  and  Buck 

Union  No.  1,  Paris  and  Edgar 

Union  No.  2,  Paris  and  Buck 

Hollenbeck  Drainage  and  Levee  (private) 

York  No.  1  (dissolved) 

York  No.  2  (dissolved) 


Champaign-Vermilion 

Acres 
17,280 

Vermilion 

2,400 

Vermilion 

3,100 

Vermilion 

4,650 

Vermilion 

6,590 

Vermilion 

2,490 

Vermilion 

6,060 

Vermilion 

3,160 

Vermilion 

1,320 

Vermilion 

1,600 

Edgar 

8,500 

Edgar 

5,000 

Edgar 

1,740 

Edgar 

4,520 

Edgar 

2,700 

Edgar 

6,530 

Edgar 

3,920 

Edgar 

900 

Edgar 

1,950 

Edgar 

3,320 

Edgar 

2,360 

Edgar 

1,950 

Clark 

1,500 

Clark 

3,090 

Clark 

2,000 

(140) 


WABASH   RIVER   WATERSHED 


141 


Table  20. — Drainage  data  for  the  Wabash  River  zvatershed — Continued 


Name  of  district 


Mutual 

Mutual 

Tri-pond 

Frog  Pond 

La  Motte  and  Montgomery 

Taylor  Pond 

Allison  No.  1 

Allison  No.  2 

Russell  and  Allison  Drainage  and  Levee£ 

Ambraw  Drainage  and  Leveeb 

England  Pond 

Big  Slough 

Allendale  No.  1 

District  No.  11 

District  No.  4 

District  No.  13 

District  No.  7 

District  No.  14 

District  No.  14 

Bonpas  No.  1 

District  No.  6 


District  No. 
District  No. 
District  No. 
District  No. 
District  No. 

District  No.  10 ". . 

District  No.  16... 

District  No.  9 

District  No.  1 

District  No.  15 

Fox  River  No.  1 

Hawthorne  Mutual  No.  2. 

Cat-tail 

Emma  No.  6 

Emma  No.  3 

Clark 


County 


Emma  No.  7. 


Total 


Crawford 

Crawford 

Crawford 

Crawford 

Crawford 

Lawrence-Crawford 

Lawrence 

Lawrence 

Lawrence 

Lawrence 

Lawrence 

Lawrence-Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Edwards-Wabash 

Wabash 

Edwards 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

Wabash 

White 

White 

White 

White 

White 

White 

White 


Area 


Acres 
1,250 
2,800 
6,105 
4,820 
2,790 
7,040 
7,350 
12,000 
6,500 

'  6,370 
3,620 
1,040 
1,600 
1,920 

175 
3,600 
1,000 
1,000 
3,800 
2,770 
2,400 
1,860 

925 
3,000 
1,390 
2,280 

900 
1,600 
1,765 

370 
1,320 
4,260 

800 
1,560 
4,710 
2,000 
1,200 


207,520 


Districts  being  organised 


63 

Paris  No.  3 

Edgar 

Edgar 

Lawrence 

Lawrence-Wabash 

Edwards 

Wabash 

White 

550 

64 

Area  west  of  Palestine 

880 

65 

Raccoon  Creek 

13,200 
6,400 

66 

Little  Bonpas 

67 
68 
69 

Bonpas  No.  2 

Rochester  and  McCleary  Bluffs  Levee  and  Drainage0 
White  County  Drainage  and  Leveed 

Total 

1,120 

2,000 

18,600 

42,750 

aSix  thousand  five  hundred  acres  outside  of  districts  already  listed. 

bComposed  of  districts  already  listed. 

cTotal  area  is  4,500  acres;    2,000  acres  of  which  are  not  contained  in  other  districts. 

dTotal  area  is  24,000  acres;    18,600  acres  of  which  are  not  contained  in  other  districts. 


142 


LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  20. — Drainage  data  for  the  Wabash  River  watershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Overflowed  areas 


70 
71 

72 
73 
74 

75 
76 

77 
78 
79 


Along  Wabash  River  north  of  Darwin . . . 
Along  Wabash  River  south  of  Darwin . . . 

Along  Wabash  River  at  York 

Southeast  of  Hutsonville 

Area  in  Catfish  bend  on  Wabash  (T.  1  N. 
Along  Wabash  south  of  Mt.  Carmel.  .  .  . 
Along  Upper  Bonpas  River 


R.  11  W.) 


Lower  Bonpas 

Along  Wabash  in  southern  part  of  Wabash  County .  . 

Along  Wabash  in  southeastern  portion  of  White 

County 


Total 


Clark 

Clark 

Clark-Crawford 

Crawford 

Wabash 

Richland-Edwards- 
Wabash 
Edwards- Wabash 
Wabash 

White 


Acres 
4,000 
4,000 
7,000 
520 
800 
2,400 

7,500 
8,000 
6,300 

8,400 


48,920 


Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


80 

Area  northwest  of  Mortimer 

Edgar 

1,300 

81 

Area  southeast  of  Mortimer 

Edgar 

1,600 

82 

Area  south  of  Metcalf 

Edgar 

2,200 

83 

West  Edgar  district  which  failed  to  organize 

Edgar 

1,900 

84 

Northeast  of  Paris 

Edgar 

2,500 

85 

Bullet  Pond  Area 

Total 

Edgar 

720 

10,220 

The  area  along  the  north  edge  of  the  watershed  has  all  received  organized 
drainage.  Nine  districts  in  this  group,  all  in  Vermilion  County  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Little  Vermilion  Special  which  is  75  per  cent  in  Champaign 
County,  drain  into  Little  Vermilion  River.  The  nine  districts  cover  47,040 
acres.  The  largest  of  these  is  the  Little  Vermilion  Special,  containing  17.280 
acres,  which  is  the  only  one.  which  lies  directly  in  the  river  valley.  Below 
this  district  Little  Vermilion  River  overflows  for  a  width  of  about  a  quarter 
of  a  mile  and  needs  dredging  very  badly. 

Three  of  the  above  districts  are  recently  organized  and  have  not  yet 
completed  their  ditches.  The  Maple  Grove  District  was  organized  in  1916,  at 
which  time  the  land  was  valued  at  $150  an  acre  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  it 
was  overflowed  with  rain  water  every  wet  year.  When  the  15  miles  of  ditches 
are  completed,  the  land  will  have  complete  outlets  for  the  tile  drains  and  it 
is  expected  that  it  will  then  be  worth  at  least  $250  an  acre.  The  second  dis- 
trict, the  Butler  Branch,  was  organized  in  1917,  when  about  two-thirds  of 
its  2,490  acres  was  considered  too  wet  for  the  best  results,  even  though  the 
land  was  then  valued  at  $250  an  acre.  The  McKendree  District  was  formed 
in  1920,  and  has  done  no  construction  work  as  yet. 


WABASH    RIVER   WATERSHED  143 

Most  of  the  land  in  districts  produced  fair  crops  every  year  before  it 
was  drained,  and  is  not  to  be  considered  in  the  same  class  as  the  overflowed 
land  in  the  bottoms  of  Embarrass,  Little  Wabash,  and  similar  streams.  The 
fertility  of  the  land  is  such  that  the  owners  feel  that  they  can  afford  to  drain 
it  even  though  its  value  without  combined  drainage  is  from  $150  to  $250 
an  acre. 

From  the  present  activity  in  this  area  it  is  highly  probable  that  other 
districts  will  be  formed.  It  is  impossible  to  indicate  just  where  they  will  be 
located  since  adjacent  landowners  differ  as  to  the  advisability  of  more  drain- 
age. When  this  area  is  fully  developed,  if  not  before,  some  attention  will 
have  to  be  given  to  Little  Vermilion  to  enable  its  channel  to  carry  the  in- 
creased run-off. 

The  drainage  in  Edgar  County  is  through  Brouillett  and  Sugar  Creeks 
to  Wabash  River.  There  are  twelve  organized  districts  here  with  a  com- 
bined area  of  48,650  acres.  All  are  located  on  the  upland  prairie,  which  is 
similar  in  topography  and  soil  type  to  that  in  Douglas  and  Champaign  coun- 
ties. The  soil  is  a  brown  silt  loam  with  patches  of  black  clay  loam,  a  type 
which  is  nearly  always  too  wet  without  artificial  drainage.  Along  the  eastern 
half  of  the  watershed  the  land  is  broken  with  steep  slopes,  the  soil  is  thin, 
and  a  considerable  portion  is  wooded.  Here  the  soil  is  a  yellow-gray  silt 
loam  except  in  the  creek  bottoms  where  it  is  a  mixed  loam. 

A  number  of  these  districts  were  organized  in  the  early  80's  and  some  as 
late  as  1912.  So  far  as  could  be  determined  all  of  them  have  given  satis- 
faction though  a  few  need  cleaning  at  present.  The  wettest  spots  have  been 
taken  care  of,  but  since  all  of  the  upland  prairie  contains  scattered  areas  of 
black  clay  loam,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  other  districts  will  be  formed,  especially 
since  land  values  have  increased.  A  small  area  of  556  acres  southwest  of 
Paris  is  now  in  the  process  of  formation,  and  will  probably  be  known  as 
Paris  Township  District  No.  3. 

Several  areas  in  Edgar  County  are  shown  on  the  map  as  in  need  of 
drainage,  one  of  which  is  southeast  and  one  northwest  of  Mortimer.  An- 
other is  south  of  Metcalf  and  still  another  northwest  of  Edgar.  The  four 
areas  contain  about  7,000  acres.  An  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  sev- 
eral years  ago  to  organize  the  last  mentioned  area  into  the  Edgar  Drainage 
District.  In  1913,  the  owners  of  the  land  in  sections  23,  14,  and  15,  T.  14  N., 
R.  11  W.,  2d.  P.  M.,  tried  to  form  the  Hunter  District,  but  the  objectors  won 
out  in  court,  and  the  petition  was  denied.  It  is  the  intention  to  prepare  an- 
other petition  to  include  a  much  larger  area  to  the  northwest,  about  2,500 
acres  in  all. 

Without  doubt  other  areas  need  drainage  as  much  as  those  which  are 
shown  on  the  map  and  listed  in  the  table.  The  ones  shown  are  those  which 
were  specifically  pointed  out  by  landowners  and  others  familiar  with  the 
locality. 


144  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

Sugar  and  Brouillett  Creeks  appear  to  offer  the  only  stream  problems, 
and  they  minor  ones.  Sugar  Creek  flows  southeasterly  from  Paris,  and  re- 
ceives the  drainage  of  that  city  as  well  as  that  of  some  of  the  upland  drain- 
age districts.  Part  of  the  flow  is  impounded  north  of  Paris  for  water  supply 
purposes.  Residents  claim  that  before  the  districts  were  formed  and  before 
the  city  had  reached  its  present  growth,  little  or  no  trouble  was  experienced 
along  this  stream ;  but  that  in  recent  years  its  flood  periods  are  much  longer. 
It  is  believed  that  clearing  the  channel  of  drift  would  largely  remedy  the 
situation.  Several  attempts  have  been  made  to  organize  for  this  purpose, 
but  each  time  it  was  sought  to  include  the  city  of  Paris  and  the  upland  dis- 
tricts, both  of  which  objected  strenuously  and  the  project  was  dropped. 
However,  the  overflow  area  along  this  stream  will  probably  not  exceed  1,000 
acres.  The  conditions  are  very  similar  along  Brouillett  Creek,  and  the  area 
affected  about  1,200  acres. 

South  of  Paris  the  topography  is  much  rougher,  and  the  need  of  artificial 
drainage  very  slight.  This  is  true  also  of  that  portion  of  Clark  County  which 
is  within  the  Wabash  watershed.  Mill  Creek  and  Big  Creek  are  the  main 
streams  in  this  county,  and  flow  in  district  valleys,  varying  considerably  in 
width,  and  bordered  by  rounded  bluffs.  The  valley  floors  are  nearly  level 
and  contain  fair  land,  but  all  is  subject  to  overflow.  Normally  the  flow  in 
these  streams  is  small  but  a  few  hours  of  steady  rainfall  will  put  them  out 
of  their  banks,  especially  in  the  spring  of  the  year.  The  floods  are  usually 
of  short  duration  and  the  streams  subside  in  a  few  hours.  This  makes  the 
cultivation  of  these  'lands  uncertain  and  not  infrequently  crops  are  lost.  The 
streams  carry  a  considerable  amount  of  drift,  which  sometimes  obstructs 
the  channels  to  such  an  extent  as  to  change  the  course  of  the  streams  and  to 
destroy  good  land. 

Wabash  River  borders  Clark  County  south  of  Marshall,  and  its  valley 
is  from  one  to  three  miles  in  width.  Three  districts  have  been  formed  in 
this  area.  At  the  Aurora  bend,  a  levee  one  and  one-half  miles  long  and  about 
15  feet  high  was  constructed  several  years  ago  by  Judge  W.  T.  Hollenbeck 
to  protect  some  600  acres  of  his  land  from  overflow.  Incidentally  the  levee 
protects  some  900  acres  of  adjoining  land,  but  Judge  Hollenbeck  has  borne  all 
the  expense.  There  are  sluice  gates  in  the  levee  for  low  water  flow  from 
the  district,  but  no  pumping  plant. 

Above  this  district  is  a  strip  of  overflowed  land  about  three-quarters 
of  a  mile  in  width,  and  seven  miles  long,  containing  approximately  4,000 
acres,  which  appears  to  be  a  feasible  drainage  project.  To  the  south  is  an 
equal  area  roughly  square  in  shape  which  could  be  protected  by  two  miles 
of  levee  and  very  profitably  reclaimed. 

South  of  the  last  mentioned  area,  the  land  was  organized  some  15  or  20 
years  ago  into  York  Township  Districts  No.  1  and  No.  2.  Ditches  were 
dredged  and  the  land  successfully  drained ;   but  apparently  feeling  that  their 


WABASH   RIVER   WATERSHED  145 

work  was  done  and  that  there  was  no  longer  any  reason  for  existence,  these 
districts  were  dissolved.  The  ditches  have  silted  up  and  the  land  is  becom- 
ing wet  again,  but  having  no  organization,  nothing  can  be  done.  They  will 
probably  re-organize  for  maintenance  work.  No  levees  were  ever  constructed, 
and  the  land  is  subject  to  overflow  during  the  greater  floods.  Surrounding 
these  districts  on  the  east,  south,  and  west  is  land  which  should  be  reclaimed. 
The  entire  bottoms  below  Darwin  to  the  south  line  of  the  county  would  make 
an  excellent  levee  project.  Districts  less  favorably  situated  along  Illinois 
River  have  very  profitably  invested  in  levees  and  pumping  plant. 

A  small  district  in  the  southwestern  corner  of  York  Township,  near 
Bullet  Pond,  was  started  in  1919  to  drain  some  swamp  land  and  to  prevent 
the  overflow  of  a  small  stream ;  but  the  petition  was  denied  by  the  Court  on 
the  grounds  that  the  cost  would  exceed  the  benefits. 

The  Tri-Pond  District  in  Crawford  County  takes  in  nearly  all  the  over- 
flow land  between  Hutsonville  and  Palestine.  It  contains  6,105  acres  and 
has  constructed  eight  and  one-half  miles  of  ditches  and  laid  three  miles  of 
large  tile.  A  levee  about  four  miles  long  was  built  along  the  river  in  1873, 
but  it  was  not  properly  maintained  and  has  been  washed  out  in  a  number  of 
places,  so  that  it  affords  no  protection  to  the  district.  Some  of  the  land- 
owners are  in  doubt  as  to  whether  a  levee  would  be  of  any  real  value  due 
to  seepage  of  water  under  it  through  the  gravelly  subsoil.  Fortunately  the 
floods  usually  came  at  a  time  when  little  damage  is  done  to  the  crops.  The 
commissioners  of  this  district  place  a  value  of  $100  an  acre  upon  the  land. 

The  Frog  Pond  District  is  to  the  west  of  the  Tri-Pond  and  uses  the  lat- 
ter's  ditch  as  an  outlet.  It  contains  4,820  acres  and  being  farther  from  the 
river  and  on  higher  ground,  is  rarely  subject  to  floods  from  the  river,  though 
due  to  lack  of  satisfactory  outlet  in  times  of  high  water,  the  water  which  is 
precipitated  upon  it  cannot  run  off  till  the  flood  subsides.  The  two  districts 
are  now  co-operating  to  construct  a  better  outlet  and  to  make  certain  changes 
in  their  ditches  and  to  clean  them. 

North  of  the  Frog  Pond  District  is  an  area  of  about  2,800  acres  which 
is  in  need  of  better  drainage.  It  is  owned  by  a  few  individuals  who  are 
planning  to  construct  the  necessary  ditches  through  a  mutual  district. 

There  is  another  area  of  approximately  1,250  acres  north  of  Hutsonville, 
the  owners  of  which  are  preparing  to  organize  a  mutual  district. 

The  LaMotte  and  Montgomery  District  embraces  2,790  acres,  which  is 
practically  the  entire  area  subject  to  overflow  between  Bright  Light  Ferry 
and  Shaw's  Landing.  The  conditions  here  are  about  the  same  as  those  in 
the  two  districts  to  the  north.    None  of  these  districts  have  pumping  plants. 

With  the  exception  of  a  narrow  strip  in  the  northeast  corner  and  a  small 
pocket  south  of  Hutsonville,  all  the  overflowed  lands  along  the  Wabash  in 
Crawford  County  which  are  capable  of  being  reclaimed  economically  are  in 
drainage  districts.    There  is  nothing  more  to  be  done  here  unless  it  is  found 


146  LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

practicable  to  construct  a  levee.  There  is  a  question  as  to  whether  the  bene- 
fits of  such  a  levee  would  exceed  the  cost. 

In  the  northeast  corner  of  Lawrence  County,  and  extending  into  Craw- 
ford County,  the  Taylor  Pond  Drainage  District  is  located.  It  was  organ- 
ized in  1902  and  has  about  13  miles  of  ditches.  It  has  two  outlets,  one  near 
Russellville  into  the  Wabash,  and  the  other  into  the  Otter  Pond  Drainage 
District's  ditch  which  empties  into  the  Embarrass.  This  district  is  really  in 
both  watersheds.  Although  the  district  is  included  in  the  Russell  and  Allison 
Levee  District  it  is  not  free  from  floods  and  was  overflowed  in  1898,  1902, 
1906,  1911,  1913,  and  1915.  The  creation  of  the  district  increased  land  values 
from  about  $20  an  acre  to  about  $90. 

Allison  Drainage  District  No.  1  was  organized  in  1897,  and  includes  the 
higher  land  back  from  the  Wabash.  It  is  a  long  narrow  district  and  has  a 
ten-mile  ditch  running  through  it.  It  is  considered  to  have  accomplished  its 
purpose  and  the  land  is  held  at  $100  an  acre.  It  is  subject  to  occasional  over- 
flows, however,  in  spite  of  the  levee  of  the  Russell  and  Allison  Levee  District 
of  which  it  is  a  part.  The  land  was  flooded  in  1907,  1913,  and  1915.  The 
outlet  of  this  district  is  in  Embarrass  River,  a  few  hundred  feet  above  the 
mouth  of  that  stream.  The  floods  come  from  both  Wabash  and  Embarrass 
Rivers,  and  the  district  is  included  in  both  the  Russell  and  Allison  Levee 
District  and  the  Ambraw  Levee  District.  However,  it  has  been  thought  best 
to  list  it  under  the  Wabash  watershed  rather  than  the  Embarrass. 

Allison  Drainage  District  No.  2  is  between  District  No.  1  and  the  Wa- 
bash River.    Its  outlet  is  into  the  ditch  of  Allison  No.  1. 

The  Russell  and  Allison  Drainage  District  was  organized  in  1882,  and 
contains  31,000  acres.  It  has  a  levee  along  the  Wabash  from  the  Lawrence- 
Crawford  County  line  to  within  about  two  miles  of  the  mouth  of  Embarrass 
River,  a  distance  of  18  miles.  From  this  point  the  levee  extends  northwest 
for  three  miles  to  the  higher  ground  in  section  16,  T.  3  N.,  R.  11  W.  Within 
this  district,  the  two  Allison  districts,  the  Taylor  Pond  District  and  part  of 
the  Beaver  Pond  District  have  been  organized. 

There  has  been  much  overlapping  of  districts  and  frequently  unjust 
assessments  have  been  levied.  The  landowners  blame  the  drainage  laws  for 
this  condition.  The  levee  was  originally  high  enough  but  the  flood  stages 
have  been  increased  by  drainage  above,  and  at  present  it  does  not  offer  com- 
plete protection.  The  district  has  spent  $400,000  to  date  and  should  spend 
considerable  more  to  raise  the  levees  and  install  pumping  plants.  However, 
it  has  unpaid  bonds  and  this  increases  the  difficulty  of  attempting  new  work. 
Nevertheless  the  commissioners  have  been  ordered  by  the  Lawrence  County 
Court  to  prepare  plans  and  estimates  for  pumping  plants.  One  of  these  is 
to  be  located  at  the  end  of  the  Allison  ditch  No.  1  and  the  other  at  the  end 
of  the  Beaver  Pond  ditch.  To  carry  out  these  plans,  it  is  proposed  to  com- 
bine all  of  the  districts  under  one  board  of  commissioners. 


WABASH   RIVER   WATERSHED  147 

In  1909,  the  Ambraw  Levee  District  was  formed  embracing  some  13,000 
acres  in  the  Otter  Pond,  Beaver  Pond  and  Allison  No.  1  and  No.  2  districts. 
A  levee  one  mile  long  was  built  in  sections  29  and  30,  T.  4  N.,  R.  11  W.,  to 
keep  out  the  flood  waters  of  the  Embarrass  River.  This  levee  has  not  entirely 
succeeded  in  its  purpose,  and  it  is  now  planned  to  construct  a  new  one  in 
sections  31  and  32. 

Below  the  mouth  of  Embarrass  River,  the  Wabash  watershed  widens 
out  again,  and  includes  the  southern  one- third  of  Lawrence  County  and  the 
southeast  corner  of  Richland  County. 

The  low  area  at  the  junction  of  Embarrass  and  Wabash  rivers  is  con- 
tained in  the  England  Pond  Drainage  District,  whose  ditches  empty  into  the 
Wabash  River.  There  are  no  levees  here  and  the  area  is  overflowed  during 
high  water  on  both  streams.  The  district  has  good  ditches  which  quickly 
carry  away  the  water  after  the  floods  subside,  and  drain  the  land,  and  the 
landowners  are  fairly  well  satisfied. 

On  the  southeast,  and  back  from  the  river,  the  Big  Slough  District  is 
located.  It  was  organized  in  1907,  contains  3,620  acres,  and  has  dredged 
five  and  one-half  miles  of  ditches.  It  has  not  been  entirely  successful,  since 
it  has  no  protection  from  overflow,  and  was  flooded  in  1916,  1917,  1918,  and 
1919.  Nevertheless,  the  land  has  increased  from  about  $25  an  acre  in  1907 
to  $175  an  acre  at  the  present  time,  not  all  of  which  is  due  to  drainage,  how- 
ever. The  commissioners  are  planning  to  enlarge  the  district  by  annexing 
small  areas  on  all  sides  aggregating  about  1,000  acres. 

To  the  west,  a  large  district  is  being  promoted  along  Raccoon  Creek, 
which  will  contain  some  13,200  acres,  and  will  include  the  old  Union  District 
of  Luken  and  Dennison  townships,  which  was  organized  under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act.  With  a  few  exceptions  all  the  districts  south  of  Clark  County 
have  been  organized  under  the  Levee  Act. 

Still  farther  west,  the  bottom  land  along  Little  Bonpas  Creek  in  Law- 
rence and  Wabash  counties,  amounting  to  about  6,400  acres,  is  being  organ- 
ized into  the  Little  Bonpas  District.  With  these  two  districts  completed,  that 
part  of  Lawrence  County  within  the  Wabash  River  watershed  will  be  well 
provided  for  as  regards  drainage. 

There  is  no  organized  drainage  in  Richland  County,  and  none  is  con- 
templated. Some  overflowed  land  along  Bonpas  Creek  should  be  included 
in  a  large  outlet  district  for  the  entire  valley.  The  amount  of  such  land,  as 
far  south  as  the  organized  districts  in  Edwards  and  Wabash  counties,  is 
7,500  acres. 

Wabash  County  is  entirely  within  this  watershed.  In  all,  sixteen  dis- 
tricts have  been  organized,  and  for  the  most  part  they  have  been  entirely 
successful.  The  largest  district  contains  3,600  acres,  and  the  combined  area 
is  26,300  acres. 


148  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

District  No.  1  was  organized  in  1880,  and  the  value  of  the  land  has 
increased  from  $20  an  acre  to  $200.  There  is  no  overflow  and  all  the  lands 
have  complete  drainage. 

District  No.  2  adjoins  No.  1  on  the  northwest,  and  is  entirely  successful. 

District  No.  3  was  organized  in  1882.  It  was  overflowed  by  the  big  flood 
of  1913,  but  normally  it  is  free  from  overflow,  and  has  given  perfect  satis- 
faction. 

District  No.  4  is  in  the  northeastern  portion  of  the  county,  and  is  high 
enough  to  escape  overflow  and  has  been  largely  responsible  for  the  favorable 
drainage  sentiment  in  that  locality. 

District  No.  5  is  not  subject  to  overflow  or  backwater,  and  its  success 
is  indicated  by  the  increase  of  land  values  from  $40  an  acre  to  $200. 

District  No.  6  has  its  outlet  in  Bonpas  Creek,  and  about  60  per  cent  of 
the  land  lies  within  the  flood  plain  of  that  stream.  Since  it  has  no  levees  it 
is  overflowed  during  periods  of  high  water.  This  district  should  be  partly 
included  in  a  large  outlet  district  along  Bonpas  Creek. 

District  No.  7  was  organized  in  1878,  and  was  one  of  the  first  to  be  con- 
structed. All  the  land  within  it  has  been  benefited,  and  it  is  considered  to 
have  accomplished  its  object,  though  it  is  partly  overflowed  every  spring. 
The  present  value  of  the  land  is  about  $125  an  acre.  Drainage  sentiment  is 
good  in  this  community. 

District  No.  8  was  formed  in  1889.  It  is  above  the  flood  plain  of  Bonpas 
Creek,  and  has  operated  satisfactorily. 

District  No.  9,  organized  in  1890,  is  almost  entirely  within  the  limit  of 
highwater  from  Wabash  River  and  is  flooded  annually.  It  is  included  in 
the  proposed  Rochester  and  McCleary  Bluffs  Levee  District  and  will  be  pro- 
tected when  that  district  is  constructed.    The  land  is  held  at  about  $80  an  acre. 

District  No.  10  is  located  along  Sugar  Creek  just  east  of  Maud.  It  is 
free  from  overflow  and  so  far  as  could  be  ascertained  is  giving  satisfaction. 

District  No.  11  is  on  the  upper  end  of  Crawfish  Creek  which  is  very 
crooked.  It  does  not  have  a  satisfactory  outlet  and  was  overflowed  in  1914, 
1917,  1918,  and  1919.  It  should  extend  farther  south.  The  landowners  for 
the  most  part  are  well  satisfied  with  the  benefits  which  they  have  received. 

District  No.  12  failed  to  organize. 

District  No.  13  contains  just  175  acres.  It  is  along  the  Wabash  River 
just  east  of  Mt.  Carmel. 

District  No.  14  is  along  Bonpas  Creek  just  south  of  the  mouth  of  Little 
Bonpas  Creek.  It  has  constructed  two  miles  of  ditches,  but  has  no  levees 
and  is  frequently  overflowed,  most  lately  in  1919.  This  area  should  also  be 
included  in  an  outlet  district. 

District  No.  15  is  a  "shoestring"  district  southeast  of  Cowling,  extending 
along  the  edge  of  the  ridge  between  Wabash  River  and  Bonpas  Creek. 


WABASH   RIVER   WATERSHED  149 

District  No.  16  is  south  of  Keensburg,  and  is  subject  to  overflow  from 
the  Wabash.  It  is  contained  in  the  proposed  Rochester  and  McCleary  Bluffs 
Levee  District. 

The  newest  district  in  this  county  is  the  Allendale  No.  1,  which  has  just 
been  completed.  The  soil  is  a  rich  black  loam,  and  the  land  is  valued  at  $200 
an  acre.  The  district  contains  1,040  acres,  all  of  which  was  overflowed 
yearly  before  the  construction  of  the  ditches,  and  300  acres  were  entirely 
worthless.  It  is  believed  that  all  the  land  in  the  district  will  be  completely 
drained. 

The  old  levee  along  the  Wabash  extending  from  the  bluffs  at  Rochester 
south  for  a  distance  of  two  and  a  half  miles,  is  followed  by  a  gap  of  a  mile 
and  a  half  and  then  by  another  half  a  mile  of  levee.  Due  to  the  gap  in  the 
levee  all  of  the  district  is  flooded.  It  is  now  proposed  to  strengthen  the 
existing  levee  and  to  construct  new  ones  sol  as  to  provide  a  continuous  levee 
from  Rochester  to  McCleary  Bluffs.  The  district  will  contain  4,500  acres 
including  districts  No.  9  and  No.  16. 

To  the  north  of  the  proposed  district  is  a  stretch  of  bottom  land  along 
the  Wabash  about  five  miles  long  and  three-fourths  of  a  mile  wide  which 
could  be  reclaimed.  Whether  or  not  it  would  pay  to  levee  this  area  is  a 
question  which  requires  further  study. 

There  are  6,300  acres  in  the  southwestern  corner  of  Wabash  County 
which  are  subject  to  overflow.  One  of  the  plans  for  improving  the  bottoms 
along  Bonpas  Creek  proposes  a  cut-off  between  that  creek  and  the  river 
through  sections  2  and  11  where  the  two  streams  are  only  3,500  feet  apart. 
The  protection  of  the  overflow  area  along  the  Wabash  at  this  point  should 
be  studied  in  connection  with  the  Bonpas  project. 

Edwards  County  has  two  districts  in  this  watershed  both  of  which  use 
the  Bonpas  as  an  outlet;  and  a  new  one  is  being  organized  in  the  same 
neighborhood. 

The  bottoms  along  Bonpas  Creek  are  sufficiently  wide  to  warrant  the 
formation  of  an  outlet  district.  There  are  24,000  acres,  exclusive  of  the  area 
within  organized  districts.  Considerable  discussion  has  taken  place,  but  thus 
far  nothing  definite  has  materialized.  The  agricultural  advisors  of  both  Ed- 
wards and  Wabash  counties  are  pushing  this  movement,  and  it  is  only  a 
question  of  time  until  an  outlet  district  will  be  formed.  A  little  educational 
work  on  the  part  of  the  State  would  aid  materially  in  forwarding  this  enter- 
prise, and  in  securing  the  proper  development  of  this  area. 

The  eastern  six  miles  of  White  County  drains  into  the  Wabash.  Most 
of  the  areas  in  need  of  drainage  either  have  been  or  are  being  reclaimed. 
There  are  seven  organized  districts  with  a  combined  area  of  15,850  acres, 
and  one  district  of  24,000  acres  is  now  beingf  organized. 

On  the  edge  of  the  bottoms,  southeast  of  Calvin  Station,  the  Fox  River 
District  No.  1  is  situated.     Its  outlet  is  into  Fox  River  and  thence  to  the 


150  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

Wabash.  It  contains  1,320  acres,  and  its  southern  portion  is  not  well  drained, 
due  to  the  hill  water.  This  area  is  included  in  the  new  White  County  Dis- 
trict, which  contains  lands  in  both  Illinois  and  Indiana.  This  district  pro- 
poses the  construction  of  a  levee  which  will  give  protection  to  24,000  acres 
of  Illinois  lands. 

Six  miles  east  of  Carmi,  4,260  acres  were  organized  under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act  into  Hawthorne  District  No.  2.  Although  the  district  has 
been  subject  to  overflow,  it  is  now  contained  in  the  new  district,  whose  levee 
will  protect  it. 

South  of  the  above  district  lies  the  Cat-tail  District  with  800  acres.  It 
is  a  tile  drainage  district,  and  has  no  ditches  or  levee,  but  is  operating  suc- 
cessfully. 

To  the  south  lies  a  group  of  four  districts.  The  largest  of  these  is  Emma 
Township  District  No.  3,  with  4,710  acres.  The  lower  part  of  this  area  is 
not  well  drained  as  the  ditches  are  in  need  of  cleaning  and  deepening  to  drain 
the  Clear  Lake  area.  To  the  west  is  situated  Emma  District  No.  6,  contain- 
ing 1,560  acres,  which  is  giving  satisfaction.  To  the  south,  1,200  acres  are 
embraced  in  Emma  District  No.  7,  and  2,000  acres  in  the  Clark  Drainage 
District.     Both  are  giving  successful  drainage. 

In  the  southern  tip  of  White  County  are  8,400  acres  of  overflow  land 
along  the  Wabash.  The  river  bounds  this  area  on  the  east  and  south  and  it 
would  require  about  nine  miles  of  levee  to  protect  it.  There  is  no  sentiment 
toward  reclaiming  this  area  and  it  will  probably  be  some  time  before  any 
steps  are  taken  in  this  connection.  With  this  exception,  White  County  is 
well  provided  for. 

Considerable  more  reclamation  work  needs  to  be  done  along  WTabash 
River.  Thus  far  the  landowners  have  not  given  enough  consideration  to 
protection  from  overflow.  Most  of  the  districts  have  simply  constructed 
ditches.  The  White  County  Drainage  and  Levee  District  is  being  planned 
along  the  right  lines,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  other  areas  will  profit 
by  this  example.  A  pumping  plant  is  an  unknown  quantity  in  this  part  of 
the  State.  The  land  can  be  thoroughly  reclaimed  only  by  levees  and  pumping 
plants.  The  Russell  and  Allison  District  is  awakening  to  this  fact,  and 
probably  the  other  districts  will  in  time  come  to  the  same  conclusion. 


CHAPTER  XX— EMBARRASS  RIVER  WATERSHED 

There  are  approximately  2,260  square  miles  within  the  Embarrass  River 
watershed,  which  drains  the  following  counties,  wholly  or  in  part :  Cham- 
paign, Vermilion,  Douglas,  Edgar,  Coles,  Clark,  Cumberland,  Jasper,  Craw- 
ford, Richland,  and  Lawrence. 

The  river  has  its  source  in  Champaign  County,  just  south  of  Champaign 
and  Urbana,  and  flows  in  a  southerly  direction  to  Newton  in  Jasper  County, 
and  thence  southeasterly  into  the  Wabash  River  below  Lawrenceville. 

The  only  tributary  of  any  size  is  North  Fork  which  joins  the  main  stream 
just  below  Sainte  Marie. 

The  stream  is  quite  crooked  and  the  length  of  its  channel  is  about  180 
miles  while  the  length  of  the  watershed  is  110  miles. 

There  is  overflow  along  the  stream  almost  throughout  its  length.  In  the 
upper  reaches  the  flooding  is  not  serious,  but  from  the  center  of  Coles  County 
south,  the  width  of  overflow  varies  from  a  quarter  of  a  mile  to  about  eight 
miles  at  the  extreme  lower  end.  Along  North  Fork  the  valley  is  from  a 
quarter  to  one  and  a  half  miles  in  width. 

In  all  approximately  90,660  acres  are  subject  to  serious  flooding,  of 
which  some  31,530  acres  are  in  organized  districts  and  7,130  acres  are  now 
in  process  of  organization.  A  very  small  part,  however,  is  satisfactorily 
reclaimed. 

The  valley  south  of  Greenup  and  Moriah  has  been  surveyed  by  the 
U.  S.  Geological  Survey  in  cooperation  with  the  State  Geological  Survey 
and  maps  showing  five-foot  contours  have  been  published.  In  1912  the  State 
Geological  Survey  secured  the  services  of  Mr.  J.  A.  Harman  of  Peoria  for 

Table  21. — Drainage  data  for  the  Embarrass  River  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organised  drainage  districts 


10 
11 

12 


Union  No.  1,  Philo  and  Crittenden 

Embarrass  River  Special 

Long  Point  Slough  Special 

Crittenden  No.  1 

Crittenden  Special 

Pesotum  Slough  Special 

Pesotum  No.  1  (By  User) 

Pesotum  No.  2  (By  User) 

Tuscola  No.  15 

Tuscola  No.  3  (dissolved) 

Tuscola  No.  16  (By  User) 

Hayes  Branch,  Tuscola 


Acres 

Champaign 

7,840 

Champaign- Vermilion 

24,460 

Champaign 

5,200 

Champaign 

1,680 

Champaign 

1,480 

Champaign-Douglas 

5,600 

Champaign 

3,400 

Champaign 

1,240 

Douglas 

320 

Douglas 

2,520 

Douglas 

1,000 

Douglas 

8,770 

(151) 


152 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  21. — Drainage  data  for  the  Embarrass  River  watershed — Continued 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

•60 

61 

62 

63 

64 


Tuscola  No.  8  (dissolved) 

Tuscola  No.  9  (dissolved) 

Tuscola  No.  10  (dissolved) 

Tuscola  No.  4 

Tuscola  No.  17 

Tuscola  No.  5 

Tuscola  No.  13 

Union  No.  15,  Areola  and  Tuscola 

Union  No.  3,  Areola  and  Tuscola 

Areola  No.  11  (By  User) 

Areola  No.  14 

Areola  No.  10a 

Areola  No.  1 

Areola  No.  7 -,-, . 

Areola  No.  2 

Kemp  No.  1,  Bowdre 

Union  No.  1,  Bowdre  and  7-Hickory 

Union  No.  1,  Bowdre  and  Sargent 

Bowdre  No.  7 

Union  No.  3,  Bowdre  and  Areola 

Areola  No.  4 

Union  District,  Bowdre  and  Areola 

Bowdre  No.  8  (By  User) 

Camargo  No.  1 

Camargo  No.  3 

Union  No.  4,  Camargo  and  Bowdre 

Union  No.  4,  Murdock  and  Bowdre 

Union  No.  2,  Murdock  and  Camargo 

Union  No.  4,  Murdock  and  Camargo 

Union  No.  1,  Murdock  and  Raymond , 

Union  No.  1,  Newman  and  Murdock 

Union  No.  3,  Murdock  and  Newman 

Newman  No.  6 

Newman  No.  10 

Union  No.  5,  Murdock  and  Sargent 

Newman  No.  5 

Newman  No.  2 

Newman  No.  4 

Newman  No.  3 

Union  No.  5,  Young  America  and  Newman 
Union  No.  1,  Sidell  and  Young  America. . . 

Young  America  No.  4a 

Young  America  No.  1 

Union  No.  2,  Shiloh  and  Young  America. . . 

ShilohNo.  llb 

Shiloh  No.  1 

Shiloh  No.  7 

ShilohNo.  2 

Brockton,  Embarrass  and  Shiloh 

Union  No.  1,  Sargent  and  Embarrass 

Embarrass  No.  1 

Standley,  Embarrass0 


Acres 

Douglas 

1,260 

Douglas 

850 

Douglas 

2,060 

Douglas 

2,040 

Douglas 

750 

Douglas 

2,240 

Douglas 

1,860 

Douglas 

1,880 

Douglas 

1,270 

Douglas 

1,150 

Douglas 

780 

Douglas 

Douglas 

11,500 

Douglas 

1,330 

Douglas 

5,840 

Douglas 

5,510 

Douglas 

6,900 

Douglas 

2,610 

Douglas 

740 

Douglas 

1,330 

Douglas 

1,880 

Douglas 

510 

Douglas 

730 

Douglas 

2,200 

Douglas 

2,770 

Douglas 

920 

Douglas 

1,470 

Douglas 

3,780 

Douglas 

2,300 

Douglas-Champaign 

2,700 

Douglas 

11,530 

Douglas 

5,150 

Douglas 

1,480 

Douglas 

1,940 

Douglas 

1,450 

Douglas 

1,280 

Douglas 

3,760 

Douglas 

2,440 

Douglas 

3,260 

Douglas-Edgar 

4,070 

Vermilion-Edgar 

3,000 

Edgar 

2,560 

Edgar 

23,040 

Edgar 

4,500 

Edgar 

600 

Edgar 

5,150 

Edgar 

5,500 

Edgar 

5,400 

Edgar-Douglas 

1,440 

Edgar 

9,040 

Edgar 

alnside  Areola  No.   1 
blnside  other  districts, 
clnside  Brockton. 


EMBARRASS   RIVER  WATERSHED 


153 


Table  21. — Drainage  data  for  the  Embarrass  River  watershed — Continued 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


Union  No.  8,  Buck  and  Embarrass . 

County  Line  Special 

Kansas  No.  2 

Polecat 


Union  No.  1,  7-Hickory  and  Morgan 

7-Hickory  No.  6,  (By  User) 

7-Hickory  No.  7,  (By  User) 

7-Hickory  No.  lb 

7-Hickory  No.  2 

7-Hickory  No.  la 

Union  No.  2,  7-Hickory  and  Humbolt 

Union  No.  3,  7-Hickory  and  Humbolt 

Humbolt  No.  4 

Humbolt  No.  1 

Ashbrook  Mutual,  Humbolt  and  LaFayette. 
Homann  Mutual,  Humbolt  and  LaFayette. 

Union  No.  1,  Mattoon  and  LaFayette 

Riley  Creek 

Kickapoo,  Mattoon 

Shelhammer  Mutual,  LaFayette 

Loxa,  LaFayette 

LaFayette  No.  1 

Cottonwood  No.  1 

Mint  Creek 

Hickory  Creek 

Marsh  Creek 

North  Fork ; 

Green  Briar 

North  German 

Eagle  Branch 

Ambraw  River 

Birds 

Otter  Pond 

Beaver  Pond 


Total 


County 


Acres 

Edgar 

1,700 

Edgar-Coles 

940 

Edgar 

1,600 

Edgar-Coles 

6,890 

Coles 

900 

Coles 

690 

Coles 

970 

Coles 

2,270 

Coles 

4,460 

Coles 

920 

Coles 

2,050 

Coles 

3,300 

Coles 

2,510 

Coles 

1,840 

Coles 

300 

Coles 

700 

Coles 

2,940 

Coles 

780 

Coles 

2,620 

Coles 

1,610 

Coles 

1,430 

Coles 

1,080 

Cumberland 

580 

Jasper 

1,370 

Jasper 

690 

Jasper 

580 

Jasper 

660 

Jasper-Crawford 

4,660 

Richland 

1,940 

Lawrence 

4,800 

Lawrence 

8,830 

Lawrence-Crawford 

5,050 

Lawrence 

4,930 

Lawrence 

8,000 

Area 


315,850 


Districts  being  organised 


99 

Redmon 

Edgar 
Jasper 
Jasper 

1,000 

100 
101 

St.  Marie 

Captain  Pond 

Total 

2,200 
4,930 

8,130 

Overflowed  areas 


Along  Embarrass  River  above  mouth  of  North  Fork. 


Along  North  Fork  of  Embarrass  River . 
Along  Embarrass  River 


Total 


Coles-Cumberland- 
Jasper 
Clark-Crawford 
Crawford- Lawrence 


26,300 
13,700 
12,000 

52,000 


154 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  21. — Drainage  data  for  the  Embarrass  River  watershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

Upland  areas 

needing  drainage 

105 
106 
107 

West  of  Paris 

Between  Hidalgo  and  Rose  Hill 

Near  Hunt  City 

Edgar 
Jasper 
Jasper 
Jasper 

Acres 
12,000 
500 
500 

108 

Between  Boos  and  West  Liberty 

Total 

600 

13,600 

the  purpose  of  making  a  study  of  the  overflowed  conditions  and  the  remedy 
thereof.  In  1913,  Bulletin  No.  25  was  issued  by  the  Survey,  containing 
Mr.  Harman's  report  and  plans  for  the  reclamation  of  the  lands  subject  to 
overflow  in  the  Embarrass  River  Valley.  In  these  plans  a  number  of  cut-offs 
are  provided  to  eliminate  the  large  loops  and  bends  in  the  channel  whenever 
the  resulting  cost  was  not  excessive.  The  length  of  the  present  channel  from 
the  mouth  to  Greenup  is  103.8  miles.  With  the  proposed  cut-offs  the  length 
would  be  80.7  miles,  a  reduction  of  about  23  per  cent.  The  bottom  area 
along  the  Embarrass  and  North  Fork  was  divided  into  26  drainage  units, 
each  of  which  formed  a  natural  sub-division,  caused  by  the  winding  course 
of  the  river  channel,  which  could  be  reclaimed  independently.  The  esti- 
mated cost  of  the  proposed  work,  as  of  Jan.  1,  1913,  is  given  as  follows: 

Per  acre 

River  channel  correction   $  3.00 

Protection  from  overflow  (by  levees)    14.00 

Completion  of  interior  drainage   3.00 

Pumping  plants  where  necessary 5.00 

Total  average  cost  of  reclamation  works $25.00 

Add  for  organization,  administration  and  incidental  expenses,  20%...     5.00 

Total  probable  average  cost,  including  all  expenses $30.00 

At  present  prices  the  cost  would  be  about  50  per  cent  greater  than  that 
given  which  was  based  on  1913  prices. 

The  conclusions  and  recommendations  contained  in  Mr.  Harman's  report 
are  in  part  as  follows : 

1.  That  a  large  amount  of  fertile  land  lying  in  the  Embarrass  River 
valley,  subject  to  overflow,  and  comparatively  useless  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses, may  be  reclaimed  and  made  available  for  profitable  farming. 

2.  That  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  improvements  of  these  lands 
will  be  in  excess  of  the  cost,  and  for  many  of  the  drainage  units  the  cost 
will  be  very  much  less  than  the  benefits. 


EMBARRASS   RIVER  WATERSHED  155 

3.  That  a  drainage  and  levee  district  should  be  organized,  including 
that  portion  of  the  Embarrass  River  valley  which  is  covered  by  this  report. 
The  officers  for  this  district  should  have  charge  of  the  channel  corrections 
and  of  the  work  of  each  drainage  unit. 

4.  That  the  legislature  of  the  State  be  requested  to  enact  a  workable 
law  under  which  such  an  organization  may  be  effected.  Such  a  law  should 
provide  that  the  general  improvement  of  correcting  the  river  channel  might 
be  charged  as  a  cost  to  all  the  lands  which  would  be  benefited  thereby,  and 
that  the  improvements  for  protection  from  overflow  and  for  interior  drainage 
might  be  charged  wholly  to  the  lands  within  the  drainage  unit  so  protected, 
and  that  the  carrying  out  of  the  local  improvements  for  each  drainage  unit 
should  be  a  matter  to  be  determined  independently  of  the  work  of  any  other 
drainage  unit. 

5.  That  the  correction  of  the  main  channel  should  be  carried  out  as  a 
whole,  and  with  as  much  expedition  as  possible  after  it  has  been  undertaken. 
The  protection  from  overflow  of  each  drainage  unit,  and  the  interior  drainage 
thereof,  which  would  include  ditches  and  pumping  station,  where  necessary, 
could  be  done  progressively. 

Until  recently  the  landowners  have  not  availed  themselves  of  these  plans 
and  the  result  of  the  effort  of  the  State  to  assist  in  the  reclamation  of  the 
bottom  land  has  been  rather  disappointing.  Recently  several  districts  have 
been  constructed,  or  are  now  planning  organizations,  which  have  used  the 
above  plans  in  a  modified  form.     These  will  be  discussed  in  detail  later. 

Table  21  gives  the  drainage  data  for  this  watershed.  It  will  be  observed 
that  98  districts  with  a  total  area  of  315,850  acres  have  been  organized  and 
that  three  districts  are  now  being  formed  which  will  increase  the  above  total 
by  8,130  acres.  These  together  represent  22.5  per  cent  of  the  watershed 
area,  and  78  per  cent  of  the  area  originally  in  need  of  drainage.  This  water- 
shed ranks  sixth  among  the  watersheds  of  the  State  as  regards  the  amount 
of  drainage  work  already  accomplished. 

Of  the  98  organized  districts,  82  are  north  of  the  railroad  between  Mat- 
toon  and  Charleston,  and  are  located  on  the  upland  prairie  away  from  the 
river.  In  fact,  this  area  is  practically  covered  with  districts  and  there  is  a 
considerable  amount  of  overlapping,  especially  in  Douglas  County.  Many  old 
districts  have  been  dissolved  and  the  area  contained  in  them  reorganized  into 
larger  districts.  This  entire  area  is  thoroughly  drained  and  the  land  ranges 
from  $400  to  $450  in  value.  Within  the  last  few  months,  a  movement  has 
been  initiated  to  form  a  large  outlet  district  along  the  river  from  a  point  about 
four  miles  north  of  the  Champaign-Douglas  County  line  to  the  Big  Four 
railroad  bridge  in  Coles  County.  The  purpose  of  this  project  is  to  dredge  the 
river  and  provide  a  better  outlet  for  the  many  districts  which  drain  into  it. 
However,  the  movement  is  meeting  with  strong  opposition  and  it  is  extremely 
doubtful  if  it  will  materialize  at  this  time.     Nevertheless  it  is  an  improve- 


156  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

ment  which  will  eventually  be  made,  since  the  natural  channel  can  not  carry 
the  extra  load  imposed  upon  it  during  floods  because  of  the  more  rapid  run- 
off caused  by  the  artificial  drainage  of  the  flat  upland.  In  making  an  im- 
provement of  this  kind  care  must  be  taken  not  to  go  to  extremes  and  thereby 
place  an  unnecessary  burden  upon  the  landowners. 

Drainage  in  this  portion  of  the  State  has  been  very  successful  and  has 
been  the  making  of  the  land  from  an  agricultural  standpoint. 

West  of  Paris  a  wet  area  is  indicated  on  the  map.  This  area  is  produc- 
ing good  crops  and  is  not  seriously  damaged  by  lack  of  better  drainage,  but 
is  not  as  well  drained  as  the  surrounding  lands.  Possibly  more  individual 
tiling  is  all  that  is  needed  here.  The  opinion  of  practically  all  of  those  con- 
sulted was  that  no  more  organized  drainage  was  needed  in  these  counties. 

No  districts  have  been  organized  in  the  southern  portion  of  Coles  or 
in  the  western  part  of  Clark  County,  and  so  far  as  could  be  ascertained  none 
are  needed,  except  in  the  Embarrass  and  North  Fork  valleys,  respectively, 
where  the  area  subject  to  overflow  is  from  a  quarter  to  half  a  mile  in  width. 

In  Cumberland  County  there  is  one  district,  the  Cottonwood  No.  1,  with 
580  acres.  The  overflow  along  the  river  here  is  over  a  mile  in  width  and 
extends  up  Cottonwood  and  Hurricane  Creeks. 

In  Jasper  County  the  valley  is  about  two  miles  in  width.  The  total 
amount  of  overflowed  area  north  of  the  mouth  of  North  Fork  is  approxi- 
mately 26,300  acres,  exclusive  of  the  area  contained  in  organized  districts 
and  those  being  organized.  North  of  Newton  there  are  two  districts:  the 
Mint  Creek  District  with  1,370  acres  west  of  the  river  and  the  Hickory  Creek 
District  with  690  acres  on  the  east.  The  former  district  includes  about  one- 
half  of  the  area  contained  in  Unit  No.  13  as  planned  in  Bulletin  No.  25  of 
the  State  Geological  Survey,  previously  mentioned.  The  district  was  organized 
in  1910,  and  completed  in  1915.  No  attention  seems  to  have  been  given  to 
the  recommendations  in  Bulletin  No.  25,  probably  because  it  was  published 
too  late  to  be  of  any  assistance.  No  levees  were  constructed  for  flood  pro- 
tection and  no  diversion  ditch  for  intercepting  the  hill  waters.  The  com- 
missioners place  a  value  of  $100  an  acre  upon  the  land.  The  Flickory  Creek 
District  is  in  about  the  same  condition.  Since  this  county  was  visited  and 
after  the  drainage  map  had  been  completed,  a  new  district  has  developed 
which  will  include  both  of  these  districts  as  well  as  the  remainder  of  the 
bottom  land  in  Wade  Township.  By  river  the  distance  is  twelve  miles,  while 
the  air-line  distance  is  about  six  miles.  The  proposed  plans  provide  for  the 
straightening  of  the  channel  and  the  construction  of  levees. 

Southeast  of  Newton,  580  acres  are  organized  in  the  Marsh  Creek  Drain- 
age District.  This  area  is  the  same  as  that  included  in  Unit  No.  11  of  the 
Embarrass  River  report.  The  plans  there  given  were  not  followed,  no 
levees  have  been  constructed  and  consequently  the  area  is  still  subject  to 
overflow  and  is  not  in  much  better  condition  than  the  adjoining  lands. 


EMBARRASS  RIVER  WATERSHED  157 

North  of  Sainte  Marie,  2,200  acres  of  bottom  land  on  the  west  side  of 
the  river  is  practically  organized  into  the  Sainte  Marie  Drainage  District. 
The  area  is  the  same  as  that  embraced  in  Unit  No.  9  of  Mr.  Harman's  report, 
and  the  plans  recommended  by  him  are  being  followed  with  the  exception 
that  more  channel  improvement  is  provided  for. 

South  of  Sainte  Marie,  the  new  Captain  Pond  District  will  reclaim  all 
the  bottom  land  to  the  south  line  of  Jasper  County.  There  are  4,930  acres 
in  this  tract  which  is  the  same  as  that  in  Units  7  and  8  of  the  report.  It  is 
planned  to  change  the  channel  of  the  river  to  the  east  bluff  and  thus  throw 
all  of  the  area  on  the  west  side  of  the  river.  Levees  will  be  constructed  to 
protect  the  land  from  overflow.  The  plans  are  comprehensive  and  should 
give  complete  protection.     The  assessment  will  be  about  $65  an  acre. 

Directly  south  of  the  above  district  in  Richland  County  the  North  Ger- 
man District  is  situated.  It  was  organized  in  1911  and  contains  1,940  acres. 
No  levees  have  been  constructed  and  the  land  is  little  better  off  than  before. 
The  present  value  of  the  land  is  'about  $40  an  acre.  To  the  northeast,  on 
the  north  side  of  the  river,  the  Green  Briar  District  has  reclaimed  4,660 
acres.  It  is  a  levee  district  and  has  just  been  completed.  It  has  the  only 
pumping  plant  along  the  river,  and  will  undoubtedly  prove  successful.  The 
area  is  practically  the  same  as  that  in  Unit  No.  6  of  the  Report  and  the  plans 
therein  recommended  were  followed  with  a  few  unimportant  exceptions. 

Four  miles  northeast  of  Sainte  Marie,  along  North  Fork,  660  acres  were 
organized  into  the  North  Fork  District  in  1916,  but  thus  far  the  commis- 
sioners have  let  no  contracts. 

The  overflowed  area  along  North  Fork  of  Embarrass  River  averages  a 
mile  or  more  in  width  and  extends  northward  to  about  the  middle  of  Clark 
County.     About  13,700  acres  here  are  subject  to  reclamation. 

Below  the  Green  Briar  District  the  valley  is  from  two  to  five  miles  in 
width  and  presents  the  most  feasible  reclamation  project  along  the  entire 
stream,  yet  nothing  has  been  done  as  far  south  as  Westport.  From  here 
most  of  the  bottom  land  as  far  south  as  Lawrenceville  is  contained  in  two 
districts,  namely,  the  Eagle  Branch  and  the  Ambraw  River.  The  former 
was  organized  in  1903  and  included  4,800  acres.  It  is  overflowed  annually, 
and  its  ten  miles  of  ditches  have  increased  the  value  of  the  land  from  about 
$30  an  acre  at  time  of  organization  to  $50  an  acre  at  present. 

The  Ambraw  River  District  contains  8,830  acres  and  was  formed  for 
the  purpose  of  channel  improvement.  A  new  channel  six  miles  long  was 
dredged  as  straight  as  it  could  be  made.  The  result  is  that  the  flood  heights 
at  the  upper  end  of  the  district  are  about  one  and  one-half  feet  lower  than 
before,  while  at  the  lower  end  they  are  about  the  same  amount  higher.  No 
levees  were  constructed  by  the  district,  and  the  land  is  overflowed  as  before, 
except  where  individuals  have  constructed  private  levees. 


158  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

Around  Birds  Station  a  district  of  that  name  was  formed  in  1909  to  in- 
clude 5,050  acres.  Twelve  miles  of  ditches  have  been  dredged  but  the  dis- 
trict has  been  only  partially  successful.  It  was  flooded  in  1912,  1915,  1917, 
and  1919,  and  drainage  sentiment  is  not  very  enthusiastic.  The  land  has  risen 
in  value  from  $40  an  acre  to  $75. 

Northeast  of  Lawrenceville  the  Beaver  Pond  and  the  Otter  Pond  Dis- 
tricts are  located.  They  contain  4,930  acres  and  8,000  acres,  respectively. 
Both  are  old  districts,  the  former  having  been  organized  in  1891  and  the 
latter  in  1898.  Neither  district  is  entirely  successful  and  is  overflowed  almost 
every  year.  Both  are  contained  within  the  Ambraw  Levee  District  which 
has  constructed  a  levee  along  the  Embarrass  River  from  the  high  ground 
east  of  Lawrenceville  to  the  Wabash  River  levee  of  the  Russell  and  Allison 
Levee  District.  There  is  another  short  levee  north  of  Lawrenceville  to  keep 
out  the  water  from  that  direction.  The  protection  has  not  been  satisfactory 
and  new  and  stronger  levees  are  needed  both  on  Wabash  and  Embarrass 
Rivers.  To  the  east  along  the  Wabash  are  other  districts  which  are  dis- 
cussed under  the  Wabash  River  watershed.  It  is  proposed  to  unite  all  of 
these  districts  under  one  set  of  commissions  since  there  is  one  common  prob- 
lem involved,  that  of  preventing  overflow  from  the  two  rivers.  A  pumping 
plant  is  proposed  at  the  end  of  the  ditch  of  the  Beaver  Pond  District. 

Although  nine  districts  have  been  organized  in  the  Embarrass  River  bot- 
toms, only  one  has  given  satisfaction,  and  that  one  is  the  Green  Briar  which 
has  just  been  completed.  It  is  successful  because  it  has  complete  protection 
from  overflow  and  a  pumping  plant  to  remove  the  water  which  collects 
behind  the  levee  during  flood  periods.  The  two  new  districts  near  Sainte 
Marie  will  undoubtedly  accomplish  all  that  is  expected  of  them,  because  they 
are  being  planned  in  a  thorough  manner. 

All  of  the  overflowed  land  in  this  valley  can  be  reclaimed  and  very 
profitably  so,  if  properly  planned.  Half-way  measures  are  rarely  successful 
and  along  streams  such  as  the  one  in  question,  ditches  without  levees  are  of 
little  value. 

As  recommended  by  Mr.  Harman  in  1913,  the  correction  of  the  main 
channel  should  be  carried  out  as  a  whole.  Improving  a  portion  of  a  stream 
does  little  good  if  the  channel  below  the  improvement  is  restricted.  This  is 
well  illustrated  by  the  channel  improvement  above  Lawrenceville,  which  causes 
higher  water  at  the  lower  end  than  formerly.  The  same  will  be  true  of  the 
channel  corrections  planned  by  the  two  new  districts.  Here  the  case  is  some- 
what different  due  to  the  fact  that  levees  are  to  be  constructed  but  such 
levees  will  have  to  be  higher  and  stronger  than  would  be  necessary  were 
the  improvements  continued  downstream. 

Where  reclamation  work  is  done  piece-meal  as  in  this  valley,  care  must 
be  taken  by  each  district  to  leave  sufficient  flood-way  between  levees  or  be- 
tween a  levee  on  one  side  and  the  bluff  on  the  other.  The  widths  recommended 


EMBARRASS   RIVER  WATERSHED  159 

in  Bulletin  No.  25  can  be  safely  followed,  and  should  by  no  means  be  de- 
creased.3 

The  principal  obstacle  which  is  delaying  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom 
land  in  this  valley  is  a  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  a  large  portion  of 
the  landowners  as  to  the  engineering  and  economic  aspects  of  the  problem. 
If  these  men  could  see  the  lands  in  the  Illinois  valley,  for  example,  which 
have  been  protected  by  levees  and  drained  by  ditches  and  pumping  plants, 
and  talk  to  owners  of  the  land  as  to  the  investment  phase  of  their  under- 
takings, their  objections  would  be  largely  removed.  As  it  is  they  feel  that 
the  expense  of  reclamation  is  too  great  and  that  signing  a  petition  for  a 
drainage  district  will  ruin  them. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  reclamation  of  this  bottom  land  is  an 
excellent  investment  if  the  drainage  works  are  correctly  planned  and  exe- 
cuted. It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  drainage  sentiment  which  has  developed 
around  Sainte  Marie  will  spread  throughout  the  entire  valley  and  that  the 
natural  wealth  which  lies  in  the  fertility  of  the  now  waste  bottom  lands  will 
be  utilized. 


aSee  chapter  XXXI. 


CHAPTER  XXI— KASKASKIA  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  watershed  of  the  Kaskaskia  is  the  second  largest  in  the  State  and 
covers  5,670  square  miles.  It  extends  from  the  center  of  Champaign  County 
in  a  southwesterly  direction  to  the  Mississippi  River  near  the  city  of  Chester. 
Its  length  is  about  180  miles  and  its  average  width  about  30  miles,  with  an 
extreme  width  of  55  miles. 

The  Kaskaskia  River  which  flows  through  the  approximate  center  of 
the  watershed  has  a  very  crooked  channel  with  slight  fall  and  low  banks. 
The  distance  by  channel  is  over  300  miles,  while  the  total  fall  is  about  390 
feet. 

Through  Champaign  and  Douglas  counties  the  bed  of  the  river  is  little 
lower  than  the  adjacent  prairie  land;  but  through  Moultrie  and  Shelby 
counties  a  distinct  valley  has  been  cut  and  the  river  winds  its  way  through 
a  valley  from  an  eighth  of  a  mile  to  one  and  a  half  miles  in  width.  The 
topography  is  rough  and  prevents  any  worth-while  channel  correction. 

In  Fayette  County  the  valley  widens  to  about  three  miles  and  continues 
so  to  Carlyle  in  Clinton  County.  For  a  short  distance  south,  it  narrows  to 
about  one  mile,  and  then  again  widens  to  an  average  width  of  three  miles 
as  far  south  as  New  Athens.  From  this  point  to  the  mouth  of  the  river,  the 
width  averages  about  one  mile. 

Due  to  the  size  of  the  watershed  and  to  the  consequently  large  volume 
of  water  entering  the  valley  during  storm  periods,  and  to  the  low  banks  and 
crooked  channel,  the  valley  below  the  Shelby-Fayette  County  line  is  subject 
to  serious  flooding.  Above  this  point  there  is  also  some  overflow,  but  the 
valley  being  narrow,  a  more  complicated  problem,  is  presented. 

The  most  disastrous  flood  of  which  there  is  record,  occurred  from  May  3 
to  15,  1908.  All  of  the  bottom  land  was  flooded  from  three  to  ten  feet  deep. 
At  Vandalia  the  river  was  out  of  its  banks  till  May  27th,  at  Carlyle  until 
June  3d,  and  at  New  Athens  until  about  June  6th. 

Other  extremely  high  floods  occurred  in  1875,  1882,  1898,  1907,  1911, 
1913,  and  1915.  Minor  floods,  sufficient  to  destroy  crops  occur  nearly  every 
year. 

The  uncertainty  of  harvesting  a  crop  from  the  bottom  land  is  such  that 
only  small  portions  here  and  there  are  under  cultivation  and  a  large  part  of 
the  land  is  still  in  timber.  However,  the  land  is  so  fertile  and  produces  so 
abundantly  that  it  is  a  continual  temptation  to  the  owners  to  farm  it  and  take 
a  chance  on  harvesting  a  crop. 

The  drainage  data  for  the  watershed  are  given  in  Table  22.  The  present 
status  of  drainage  in  the  several  portions  of  watershed  will  be  given  in  order 
beginning  at  the  upper  end. 

That  portion  of  the  watershed  lying  north  of  the  Cincinnati,  Indiana  and 
Western  Railroad  between  Decatur  and  Tuscola  is  completely  covered  with 


KASKASKIA   RIVER   WATERSHED 


161 


drainage  districts.  Twenty-nine  have  been  organized  in  this  area  and  contain 
a  total  of  219,200  acres.  One  of  these,  the  Lake  Fork  Special,  contains 
44,220  acres;  a  second,  the  Two-mile  Slough,  covers  21,000  acres;  a  third, 
the  Fountain  Head,  has  19,900  acres;  a  fourth,  the  Okaw,  drains  18,100 
acres;  and  a  fifth,  the  East  Lake  Fork,  embraces  17,340  acres.  There  are. 
four  others  which  contain  between  10,000  and  15,000  acres  each.  So  it  is 
seen  that  drainage  work  here  has  been  carried  out  in  a  very  comprehensive 
manner. 

Table  22. — Drainage  data  for  the  Kaskaskia  River  zvatershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organised  drainage  districts 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 


Fountain  Head 

Kaskaskia  Mutual  (Included  in  Fountain  Head) 

Kaskaskia  Special 

Two-mile  Slough 

Union  No.  12,  Tuscola-Pesotuma 

Okaw 

Dry-Fork  Mutual 

East  Lake  Fork 

Kankakee 

Monticello  No.  2 

Monticello  and  Bement  Mutual  No.  2 

Lake  Fork  Special 

Bement  Mutual  No.  3 

Bement  Mutual  No.  1 

Union  Mutual  No.  4,  Bement,  Willow  Branch  and 

Cerro  Gordo 

Cerro  Gordo  No.  4 

Union  No.  3,  Cerro  Gordo  and  Willow  Branch 

Cerro  Gordo  No.  2 

Cerro  Gordo  No.  1 

Union  No.  5,  Cerro  Gordo  and  Long  Creek 

Union  No.  6,  Cerro  Gordo  and  Long  Creek 

Union  No.  7,  Cerro  Gordo  and  Lovington 

Union  No.  1,  Unity  and  Lovington  (User) 

Unity  No.  9 

Hammond  Mutual 

Unity  No.  3 

Unity  No.  2 

Unity  No.  7 

Garrett  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Garrett  and  Bourbon 

Lowe  No.  1 

Lowe  No.  4 

Lowe  No.  7 

Lowe  No.  2 

Lowe  No.  5 

Lovington  No.  1 : 

Lovington 


Acres 

Champaign 

19,900 

Champaign 

Champaign 

10,620 

Champaign 

21,000 

Douglas-Champaign 

720 

Champaign-Douglas 

18,100 

Champaign 

1,900 

Champaign 

17,340 

Champaign-Piatt 

11,400 

Piatt 

4,500 

Piatt 

2,700 

Champaign-Piatt 

44,220 

Piatt 

320 

Piatt 

2,400 

Piatt 

2,500 

Piatt 

7,500 

Piatt 

13,460 

Piatt 

4,240 

Piatt 

4,200 

Piatt-Macon 

920 

Piatt-Macon 

1,760 

Piatt-Moultrie 

1,640 

Piatt-Moultrie 

2,100 

Piatt 

2,500 

Piatt-Moultrie 

8,060 

Piatt-Moultrie 

8,440 

Piatt 

1,100 

Piatt 

4,000 

Douglas-Champaign 

10,670 

Douglas 

4,170 

Moultrie 

1,680 

Moultrie 

2,080 

Moultrie 

2,160 

Moultrie 

3,280 

Moultrie 

5,560 

Moultrie 

1,440 

Moultrie 

1,240 

162 


LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  22. — Drainage  data  for  the  Kaskaskia  River  watershed — Continued 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 


90 
91 

92 


11  (By  User) 

13 

10  (By  User) 


Hostetler 

Union  No.  6,  Jonathan,  Lovington  and  Lowe . . 

Lovington  No.  2 

Sullivan  No.  1 

Sullivan  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Lowe  and  Jonathan  Creek 

Jonnathan  Creek  No.  4 

Caldwell 

Mast  Union  No.  1,  Lowe  and  Jonathan  Creek 

Jonathan  Creek  No.  2  (By  User) 

Union  District 

Union  Special 

North  Okaw  No.  8 

North  Okaw  No.  6 

North  Okaw  No. 
North  Okaw  No. 
North  Okaw  No. 

Okaw  No.  12  (By  User) 

Okaw  No.  9  (By  User) 

Union  No.  9  Bourbon  and  North  Okaw 

Bourbon  No.  1 

Bourbon  No.  3b 

Union  No.  1,  Bourbon  and  Areola 

Union  No.  13,  Areola  and  Bourbon 

Union  No.  15,  Areola  and  Bourbon 

Areola  No.  12 

Areola  No.  5  (dissolved) 

Areola  No.  6 

Union  No.  8,  Areola  and  Humbolt 

Humbolt  No.  5 

Union  No.  2,  North  Okaw  and  Humbolt 

Union  No.  1,  Humbolt  and  North  Okaw 

Union  No.  1,  Mattoon  and  North  Okaw  (User)b. 

North  Okaw  No.  3 

Brewster-Rice 

Mattoon  No.  2 

Whitley  Mutual  No.  1 

Whitley  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  North  Okaw  and  East  Nelson 

East  Nelson  No.  1 

Asa  Creek 

Sullivan  Mutual  No.  1 

Dora  Mutual  No.  4 

Dora  Mutual  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Penn  and  Pickaway 

Union  No.  1,  Todd's  Point  and  Pickaway 

1,  Okaw  and  Todd's  Point 

1 

1 ,  Pana  and  Rural 


Union  No 
Okaw  No. 
Union  No 

Oconee  No.  1 : 

Prairie  No.  2 

Prairie  No.  1 

Pepper  Mill 

Dively  Levee  and  Drainage.. 
Vandalia  Levee  and  Drainage 


Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie-Coles-Douglas 
Coles-Moultrie 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 

Douglas-Coles 
Douglas 
Douglas 
Douglas 
Douglas 
Douglas 
Douglas 
Douglas 
Douglas 
Douglas-Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Coles 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Coles-Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Moultrie 
Shelby 
Shelby 
Shelby 
Shelby 

Christian-Shelby 
Shelby 
Shelby 
Shelby 
Fayette 
Fayette 
Fayette 


Acres 

1,240 

2,680 

640 

560 

2,560 

3,200 

2,310 

3,700 

3,200 

520 

4,900 

2,930 

1,810 

1,040 

640 

820 

240 

1,200 

720 

610 

7,220 

1,900 
1,440 
1,330 
450 
1,200 
1,160 
2,560 
4,000 
2,430 
2,430 


3,280 

1,720 

2,860 

720 

780 

520 

700 

780 

720 

600 

1,280 

790 

960 

2,560 

2,920 

2,160 

710 

2,400 

2,000 

1,790 

1,300 

15,000 


blnside  other  districts. 


KASKASKIA  RIVER  WATERSHED 


163 


Table  22. — Drainage  data  for  the  Kaskaskia  River  zvatershed — Continued 


Refer- 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


Union  No.  1,  Bear  Grove  and  Vandalia 

Meridian  Line 

Pond  Lily 

Fish  Lake 

Pecan  Island 

Wildcat 

Grassy  Lake 

Soper  Lake 

Tamalco  No.  1 

SanteFeNo.  2 

Sante  Fe  Drainage  and  Levee 

Germantown 

Hanover 

Union  No.  1,  Harvel  and  Pitman 

HarvelNo.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Janes ville  and  Pitman.  .  . 
Union  No.  1,  Harvel  and  Raymond.  .  . 

Raymond  No.  2 

Raymond  No.  3 

Union  No.  1,  Raymond  and  Rountree  . 

Raymond  No.  1 

Silver  Creek 

Silver  Creek  No.  1,  O'Fallon 

Richland  Creek  No.  1 

Richland  Creek  No.  2 

Richland  Creek  No.  3 

Richland  Creek  No.  4 

Horse  Prairie 

Total 


Acres 

Fayette 

4,500 

Fayette 

600 

Fayette 

340 

Fayette 

5,000 

Fayette 

660 

Fayette 

5,700 

Fayette 

3,500 

Fayette 

3,600 

Bond 

2,560 

Clinton 

1,200 

Clinton 

3,000 

Clinton 

980 

Clinton 

3,400 

Montgomery 

1,600 

Montgomery 

1,840 

Montgomery 

2,140 

Montgomery 

2,120 

Montgomery 

450 

Montgomery 

730 

Montgomery 

3,720 

Montgomery 

840 

Madison 

1,100 

St.  Clair 

4,190 

St.  Clair 

2,710 

St.  Clair 

2,150 

St.  Clair 

1,900 

St.  Clair 

700 

Randolph 

400 

419,640 


Districts  being  organised 


Extension  of  Garrett  No.  2 

Dora  Township 

Pickaway 

Kaskaskia  River  Outlet^ 

Blue  Grass  Creek,  Butler  Grove  and  Raymond . 

New  Douglas  No.  1 

Upper  Shoal  Creek 

Lower  Shoal  Creek 

Heimann 

Silver  Creek  No.  2,  Shiloh  Valley 

North  Richland  Creek 


Total 


Douglas 

2,070 

Moultrie 

1,100 

Shelby 

920 

Fayette-Bond-Clinton 

32,450 

Montgomery 

3,480 

Madison 

1,480 

Bond 

8,000 

Clinton 

9,200 

Clinton 

1,100 

St.  Clair 

6,520 

St.  Clair 

200 

66,520 


Overflowed  areas 


Along  Kaskaskia  River  and  tributaries, 

Along  Wolf  Creek 

Along  Mitchell  and  Becks  Creek 

Along  Big  Creek 

Along  Boaz  Creek 


Moultrie-Shelby 

Effingham-Fayette 

Fayette-Shelby 

Fayette 

Fayette 


12,300 
3,600 
2,700 
1,500 
1,000 


aThere  are 
districts. 


>,000  assessable  acres  in  this  district,  of  which  36,550  acres  are  in  existing 


164 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  22. — Drainage  data  for  the  Kaskaskia  River  zvatershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


137 
138 
139 
140 

141 
142 
143 
144 


Along  Hickory  Creek 

Along  Hurricane  Creek 

Along  East  Fork  Kaskaskia  R.  and  Bear  Creek. 
Along  Crooked  Creek  and  Tributaries 


Along  Kaskaskia  River,  Carlyle  to  mouth  . . 

Along  Shoal  Creek 

Along  East  Branch  Shoal  Creek 

Along  Beaver  Creek  and  Lower  Shoal  Creek 

Total 


Fayette 
Fayette 
Fayette 

Clinton-  Washington- 
Marion 


Montgomery  -Bond 

Bond 

Clinton 


Acres 
1,500 
6,500 
4,500 

14,800 

71,800 

8,400 

4,500 

4,700 


137,800 


Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 


Bourbon  and  Areola  Townships . . . 

Lone  Grove  Township 

Old  Ripley  Township 

East  of  Belleville 

Between  Mascoutah  and  Lebanon. 

Southeast  of  Mascoutah 

Near  Darmstadt 

West  of  Marissa 


Total. 


Douglas 
Fayette 
Bond 
St.  Clair 
St.  Clair 
St.  Clair 
St.  Clair 
St.  Clair 


1,700 

800 

1,500 

7,500 

10,000 
5,000 
4,000 

11,000 


41,500 


South  of  the  above  mentioned  railroad  the  land  as  far  south  as  Sullivan 
and  Mattoon  is  all  in  districts  with  the  exception  of  a  strip  three  or  four  miles 
wide  along  the  river  where  the  natural  drainage  is  better.  There  are  53 
districts  in  this  portion  of  the  watershed  with  a  combined  area  of  107,000 
acres.  The  largest  district  contains  7,220  acres  and  there  are  16  with  less 
than  1,000  acres  each. 

Most  of  the  89  districts  mentioned  have  been  successful  and  the  land 
is  well  drained.  The  larger  ones  have  for  the  most  part  been  the  most  suc- 
cessful and  have  better  ditches  and  maintain  them  in  better  condition.  More 
tiling  is  needed  in  a  number  of  the  districts  especially  in  those  in  Moultrie 
County. 

The  Okaw  River  District  was  partially  formed  for  straightening  the  river 
through  Douglas  County,  but  was  abandoned  by  petition  before  it  had  been 
fully  organized.  Conditions  are  not  yet  ripe  for  this  improvement,  but  it 
undoubtedly  will  be  carried  out  at  some  future  time.  The  artificial  drainage 
of  all  the  surrounding  land  has  greatly  increased  the  flood  flow  of  the  stream 
through  both  Douglas  and  Coles  Counties. 

In  the  northwest  part  of  Moultrie  County  there  are  several  small  mutual 
districts  whose  boundaries  could  not  be  obtained.    Due  to  the  activity  of  the 


KASKASKIA   RIVER   WATERSHED  165 

Farm  Advisor  of  Moultrie  County,  a  considerable  interest  is  being  mani- 
fested in  farm  drainage.  At  a  drainage  meeting  held  in  July,  1920.  the 
statement  was  made  that  only  about  ten  per  cent  of  the  cultivable  area  was 
satisfactorily  drained.  A  large  amount  of  individual  work  may  be  expected 
here  during  the  next  few  years.  The  southern  part  of  this  county  has  good 
natural  drainage. 

Very  little  work  has  been  done  in  Shelby  County,  and  very  little  has  been 
needed.  There  is  greater  relief  in  the  topography  here  than  in  the  surround- 
ing counties.  In  the  northern  part  of  this  county  a  group  of  four  districts 
occupies  the  upland  prairie  between  Robinson  and  West  Okaw  creeks,  and  a 
fifth  is  in  process  of  formation.  The  combined  area  of  the  five  is  8,150  acres. 
In  the  southeastern  portion  of  this  county  there  are  two  small  districts  to- 
gether containing  4,400  acres.  The  drainage  problem  is  confined  to  the  valley 
of  the  river  and  a  few  of  the  larger  creeks.  The  width  of  the  valley  subject 
to  overflow  varies  from  a  quarter  to  one  mile,  and  the  total  amount  of  land 
thus  affected  is  approximately  12,300  acres.  The  valley  is  not  wide  enough 
for  the  construction  of  levees  and  too  far  below  the  level  of  the  adjoining 
land  to  permit  of  any  considerable  amount  of  channel  correction.  About  all 
that  can  be  done  here  is  to  clean  out  the  channel.  The  proposed  straightening 
of  the  channel  through  Fayette  County  would  prove  of  benefit  to  the  Shelby 
County  land.  There  has  been  some  talk  of  constructing  a  40-foot  dam  at 
Shelbyville  for  electric  power  development ;  but  owing  to  the  rather  uncertain 
economic  features  of  the  project,  the  matter  has  not  gone  very  far. 

In  Fayette  County  eleven  districts  have  been  organized,  eight  of  which 
lie  in  the  river  bottoms.  The  three  upland  districts  form  a  group  west  of 
Vandalia.  The  largest  of  these  is  Union  No.  1  of  Bear  Grove  and  Vandalia 
townships,  which  provides  satisfactory  drainage  to  4,500  acres.  The  Meridian 
Line  and  Pond  Lily  are  small  districts  of  600  and  340  acres,  respectively,  and 
have  been  only  partially  successful.  All  have  their  outlets  into  Raccoon 
Slough,  which  should  be  dredged,  thus  giving  better  drainage  to  the  sur- 
rounding area. 

Opposite  the  mouth  of  Big  Creek,  1,790  acres  of  bottom  land  were  com- 
bined in  the  Pepper  Mill  Drainage  District  in  1908.  Three  miles  of  ditches 
and  one  mile  of  large  tile  constitute  the  drainage  work  of  this  district.  No 
levees  were  constructed  and  the  tract  is  frequently  inundated.  The  land  has 
increased  in  value  from  $35  an  acre  in  1908  to  about  $50  an  acre  at  present. 

Several  miles  downstream,  and  on  the  east  side,  the  Dively  Levee  and 
Drainage  District  was  organized  in  1911  for  reclaiming  1,300  acres  of  bot- 
tom land.  A  levee  two  and  one-half  miles  long  and  three  miles  of  ditches 
were  constructed.  The  levee  protects  the  land  except  in  extreme  floods  such 
as  occurred  in  1913  and  1915.  No  pumping  plant  has  been  built  and  when 
the  river  is  high  the  district  suffers  from  the  hill  water  which  collects  behind 
the  levee.    The  land  here  is  also  valued  at  about  $50  an  acre. 


166  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

Directly  south  of  the  Dively  District,  the  Vandalia  Levee  and  Drainage 
District  is  located.  It  is  the  largest  organization  of  its  kind  in  the  valley  and 
contains  15,000  acres.  It  was  formed  in  1903  and  has  twelve  miles  of  levee 
and  eight  miles  of  interior  ditches.  The  levee  is  connected  with  the  bluffs 
on  the  north — as  it  was  constructed  before  the  Dively  levee — but  is  open  at 
the  lower  end  where  the  main  ditch  enters  the  river,  and  is  subject  to  back- 
water during  high  stages  of  the  river.  The  levee  is  too  close  to  the  river 
and  restricts  the  flood  flow.  It  frequently  breaks  and  the  district  was  en- 
tirely inundated  in  1908,  1911,  1913,  and  1915.  About  1,000  acres  within 
the  district  are  not  yet  cleared  of  timber.  The  commissioners  realize  the 
need  of  higher  levees  and  deeper  ditches;  but  these  improvements  will 
probably  not  be  made  until  after  the  new  outlet  district  is  constructed,  when 
its  levees  may  prove  of  sufficient  height.  The  land  here  is  also  valued  at 
about  $50  an  acre. 

About  four  miles  south  of  Vandalia,  the  river  divides  and  flows  on  each 
side  of  Pecan  Island,  which  contains  about  1,000  acres.  The  Pecan  Island 
Levee  District  has  constructed  a  levee  around  the  Island,  which  gives  pro- 
tection to  660  acres.  Definite  information  concerning  the  success  of  this 
undertaking  was  not  obtained. 

West  of  Pecan  Island  lie  5,000  acres  of  bottom  land  within  the  Fish 
Lake  Drainage  District  which  was  organized  in  1905.  This  project  has  not 
turned  out  satisfactorily,  since  no  levees  were  constructed  and  the  land  is 
flooded  every  year  more  or  less.     The  land  is  valued  at  about  $30  an  acre. 

The  Wildcat  Drainage  District  occupies  the  valley  below  Pecan  Island. 
It  was  formed  in  1905  and  contains  5,700  acres.  The  area  is  not  leveed  and 
is  overflowed  almost  every  year.  Eight  miles  of  ditches  comprise  the  drain- 
age works  of  the  district.  The  commissioners  give  the  value  of  the  land  as 
$50  an  acre. 

The  Grassy  Lake  District  includes  3,500  acres  north  of  the  mouth  of 
Hurricane  Creek.  It  has  no  levees  and  completed  its  six  miles  of  ditches  in 
1909.  It  also  is  flooded  nearly  every  year,  and  its  land  is  worth  about  $40 
an  acre. 

The  last  river  district,  the  Soper  Lake,  lies  in  the  east  bottoms  between 
Hurricane  and  Bear  Creeks.  There  are  3,600  acres  in  the  district  which 
was  formed  in  1908.  It  has  no  protection  against  overflow  and  is  flooded 
every  year.  The  ditches  carry  off  the  surface  water  satisfactorily,  but  with- 
out protection  from  overflows,  the  bottom  land  has  very  little  value.  The 
commissioners  place  a  valuation  of  $20  an  acre  on  the  land. 

From  the  above  brief  description  of  the  eight  districts  in  the  Kaskaskia 
valley,  it  is  evident  that  little  reclamation  has  been  accomplished. 

In  1908,  the  Kaskaskia  valley  from  Cowden  Bridge  to  the  mouth  of  the 
river  was  surveyed  and  mapped  by  the  State  Geological  Survey  in  cooperation 
with  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey.     Special  drainage  maps  were  prepared  so 


KASKASKTA   RIVER   WATERSHED  167 

that  an  intelligent  study  of  the  situation  might  be  made  by  the  Internal 
Improvement  Commission  of  Illinois,  which  had  agreed  to  do  so  provided 
the  maps  were  furnished.  This  Commission  employed  Mr.  J.  A.  Harman 
of  the  Harman  Engineering  Company  of  Peoria,  to  make  plans  for  the 
reclamation  of  the  overflowed  lands  along  the  Kaskaskia  as  far  north  as 
Cowden  Bridge.  Before  the  completion  of  the  work,  the  activities  of  the 
Internal  Improvement  Commission  were  transferred  to  the  newly  appointed 
Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission,  which  completed  the  reclamation  studies  and 
published  Mr.  Harman's  report  in  1912.  One  of  the  essential  elements  of 
Mr.  Harman's  investigation  was  the  amount  of  channel  straightening  which 
would  be  profitable  and  economical.  By  such  channel  correction  the  maxi- 
mum flood  stage  and  the  duration  of  floods  were  to  be  reduced.  The  findings 
and  conclusions  in  this  connection  were  briefly  as  follows : 

1.  The  distance  from  the  Mississippi  River  to  Cowden  Bridge  by  the 
old  channel  is  196.4  miles,  while  the  median  distance  is  122.1  miles. 

2.  By  the  maximum  amount  of  straightening  it  was  possible  to  reduce 
the  length  of  channel  to  132.6  miles,  or  only  10.5  miles  more  than  the  median 
distance.  This  plan  called  for  44.3  miles  of  new  channel  and  was  not  con- 
sidered justifiable  from  the  standpoints  of  cost  and  of  the  benefits  to  be 
derived  therefrom. 

3.  The  route  adopted  was  148.1  miles  long  of  which  18  miles  repre- 
sented new  channel.  The  maps  accompanying  the  report  showed  the  loca- 
tion of  the  proposed  cut-offs.  The  straightening  of  the  channel  was  con- 
sidered the  first  step  in  the  reclamation  work,  but  this  alone  would  not  pre- 
vent the  flooding  of  the  land.  The  plan  grouped  the  overflowed  areas  into 
28  drainage  units,  for  each  of  which  levees  and  bluff  diversion  ditches  were 
provided.  The  area  in  each  unit  was  such  that  it  might  be  reclaimed  inde- 
pendent of  any  other  unit. 

The  estimated  cost  of  the  reclamation  work  outlined  in  the  report  is  as 
follows : 

Per  acre 

Channel    improvement    $  6.70 

Levees  and  diversion  ditches 19.10 

Interior  drainage,  either  by  pumps  or  gravity  outlets 8.00 

Right  of  way,  contingencies,  engineering,  administration,  etc.    (20%)     8.45 

Total  average  cost  per  acre $42.45 

At  present  prices  the  above  estimate  should  be  increased  about  50  per 

cent. 

The  conclusions  and  recommendations  given  in  the  report  are  as  follows : 
1.     That  the  Kaskaskia  valley  contains  a  very  large  and  fertile  tract  of 

land,  which  is  now  subject  to  overflow  and  in  many  respects  worse  than  use- 


168  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

less,  but  which  may  be  reclaimed  and  made  available  for  profitable  farming. 

2.  That  the  total  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  reclamation  of  this 
land  will  be  from  50  to  100  per  cent  more  than  the  cost  of  such  improvements. 

3.  That  in  order  to  carry  out  such  an  improvement  effectively  and 
efficiently  it  will  be  necessary  to  provide  an  organization  to  administer  and 
control  the  entire  improvement  as  a  unit,  and  to  maintain  the  improvement 
in  a  high  state  of  efficiency  after  construction. 

4.  As  there  is  no  law  in  the  Illinois  statutes  under  which  such  an  organ- 
ization can  be  readily  effected,  we  recommend  that  a  new  drainage  law  be 
enacted  which  would  be  effective  for  the  organization  and  management  of 
large  areas  of  overflowed  and  swamp  lands. 

5.  That  the  provisions  of  such  a  law  should  make  it  possible  to  carry 
out  the  general  improvements  at  the  cost  of  all  the  lands  within  the  drainage 
district,  and  subsequently  to  develop  each  drainage  unit  at  the  cost  of  the  land 
in  such  unit  when  the  owners  of  the  land  shall  desire  the  same  to  be  done. 

6.  That  the  development  of  such  an  area  of  land  should  be  progressive: 
(1)  The  correction  of  the  main  stream  channels ;  (2.)  the  development  of  the 
drainage  units. 

Following  the  publication  of  the  above  report,  the  more  progressive  land- 
owners initiated  a  movement  to  secure  the  passage  of  an  act,  such  as  outlined 
in  recommendations  4  and  5.  A  bill  was  introduced  in  the  1915  Legislature, 
but  failed  to  pass.  A  second  attempt  was  made  in  1917  and  resulted  in  the 
passage  of  Section  65a,  known  as  the  "Outlet  District  Act."  Following  the 
placing  of  this  law  on  the  statute  books,  steps  were  taken  to  organize  an 
outlet  district  embracing  all  the  bottom  land  in  Fayette,  Bond,  Clinton,  Wash- 
ington, and  St.  Clair  counties.  However,  so  much  opposition  was  met  with 
from  the  landowners  in  Washington  and  St.  Clair  counties,  that  these  were 
dropped  from  consideration,  and  a  petition  was  prepared  covering  the  lands 
in  Fayette,  Bond,  and  Clinton  counties  as  far  south  as  Carlyle.  Everything 
was  going  smoothly  when  war  conditions  delayed  progress  for  the  time 
being.  After  the  war,  the  matter  was  again  taken  up,  the  petition  was 
filed,  and  Commissioners  were  appointed  to  investigate  and  report  upon  the 
feasibility  of  the  project.  The  name  given  to  the  district  is  the  Okaw  Valley 
Outlet  Drainage  District.  The  report  of  the  commissioners  was  filed  in  the 
Fayette  County  court  December  4,  1920.  Considerable  opposition  has  devel- 
oped at  the  lower  end  of  the  district  and  the  case  is  still  in  court. 

There  are  approximately  69,000  assessable  acres  in  the  proposed  district 
of  which  36,550  acres  are  within  the  eight  organized  districts  previously 
mentioned.     The  area  is  shown  on  the  map  with  reference  number  124. 

The  route  of  the  channel  proposed  in  the  petition  did  not  follow  that 
recommended  in  the  report  of  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission.  Many 
long  cut-offs  were  substituted  for  the  shorter  ones  of  the  report,  thus  increas- 
ing the  length  of  new  channel.     After  new  surveys  had  been  made  the  corn- 


KASKASKIA  RIVER   WATERSHED  169 

missioners,  upon  the  advice  of  their  engineers,  decided  that  the  route  pro- 
posed in  the  petition  was  not  the  most  feasible  one. 

Since  the  fate  of  this  district  will  have  an  important  bearing  upon  the 
reclamation  of  other  bottom  lands,  and  since  the  proposed  plans  should  prove 
of  interest  to  the  owners  in  other  valleys  it  is  thought  advisable  to  quote  a 
portion  of  the  Commissioner's  and  Engineers'  Report. 

"A  detailed  examination  of  the  present  channel  of  said  river  discloses 
the  fact  that  said  channel  is  so  winding  and  tortuous  that  practically  no  part 
of  said  river  channel  can  be  utilized  in  the  construction  of  a  new  channel 
without  material  interference  with  the  proposed  object  of  said  petition.  We 
are  advised  and  herein  find  that  to  follow  the  line  outlined  on  said  plot  at- 
tached to  said  petition  would  involve  the  expenditure  of  as  much  or  more 
money  than  the  route  hereinafter  proposed.  In  the  construction  of  said 
improvement  as  proposed  in  the  petition  the  dredge  boat  constructing  said 
improvement  would  at  short  intervals  be  compelled  to  enter  and  leave  the 
present  channel  to  make  a  cut-off  through  the  lands,  the  construction  of  a 
dam  would  be  required  to  impound  sufficient  water  to  permit  the  boat  to 
approach  properly  the  bank  to  be  cut,  that  the  stretches  of  river  which  might 
be  used  would  be  so  short  from  a  practical  standpoint  that  contractors  on  said 
work  would  be  required  to  make  higher  charges  for  earth  actually  removed, 
so  that  it  is  believed  a  practically  continuous  channel  may  be  constructed  at 
an  expense  not  to  exceed  the  cost  of  the  channel  proposed  in  said  petition. 
*  *  *  *  The  principal  fact,  however,  which  determined  your  commissioners 
to  recommend  the  route  hereinafter  proposed  is  the  fact  that  they  are  advised 
and  here  find  that  the  route  so  hereinafter  proposed  will  be  constructed 
through  a  lower  portion  of  the,  flood-way  and  will  more  effectually  produce 
the  result  of  relieving  the  lands  included  within  the  boundaries  of  said  dis- 
trict of  the  flood  waters  of  said  Kaskaskia  River  than  the  route  proposed 
in  said  petition." 

The  proposed  route  consists  of  a  series  of  straight  lines  joining  the  five 
railroad  or  highway  bridges  which  cross  the  stream,  and  is  a  very  radical 
plan  of  channel  improvement.  In  this  connection  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Chapter  XXX  of  this  report.  The  estimated  cost  of  the  improvement  is 
$30  an  acre. 

There  is  also  some  overflowed  land  along  the  several  creeks  which  enter 
the  river  in  the  stretch  covered  by  the  proposed  outlet  district.  These  are 
indicated  on  the  map  and  the  area  of  each  is  given  in  Table  22.  There  are 
about  21,000  acres  of  such  land  along  these  streams. 

Below  Carlyle  in  Clinton  County,  four  districts  have  been  organized. 
The  largest  and  most  nearly  reclaimed  area  is  in  the  Santa  Fe  Drainage  and 
Levee  District,  which  contains  3,000  acres  just  southeast  of  Bartelso.  The 
tract  is  entirely  surrounded  by  levees.  On  the  side  toward  the  river  the 
levee  is  over  a  mile  from  the  river  bank  and  is  high  enough  to  prevent  over- 


170  LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

flow  except  in  extreme  floods.  The  ditches  are  of  ample  size  and  are  in 
excellent  condition.  At  the  southwest  corner  of  the  district  an  18-inch  pump 
is  installed  which  is  entirely  inadequate  to  handle  the  water  from  the  3,000 
acres  in  the  district  and  from  some  2,000  acres  of  hill  land,  with  the  result 
that  the  lower  end  of  the  tract  is  covered  with  water  for  several  days  during 
flood  periods.  The  upper  land  has  a  value  of  about  $75  an  acre,  while  the 
lower  land  is  little  better  off  than  the  land  outside  the  district,  and  the  owners 
of  this  land  are  now  suing  the  district  for  damages. 

Santa  Fe  No.  2  is  directly  east  and  covers  only  900  acres.  No  levees 
have  been  built  and  the  land  is  frequently  flooded. 

The  Germantown  District  joins  the  Santa  Fe  Levee  District  on  the 
west.  It  has  a  small  levee  which  is  overtopped  during  extreme  storms  such 
as  occurred  in  1908  and  1915.  The  water  backs  into  the  district  from  the 
Shoal  Creek  side,  and  the  commissioners  are  now  planning  to  construct  a 
levee  which  will  prevent  this.  The  district  is  considered  a  success  and  the 
land  is  valued  at  about  $100  an  acre. 

The  Hanover  Drainage  District  is  just  north  and  west  of  the  German- 
town  District  and  contains  3,400  acres.  It  has  one  short  levee  between  it 
and  the  Germantown  District,  but  no  protection  from  overflow  from  either 
Kaskaskia  River  or  Shoal  Creek. 

Between  Shoal  and  Sugar  creeks,  1,100  acres  are  now  being  formed 
into  the  Heiman  Drainage  District. 

If  the  channel  above  Carlyle  is  straightened,  the  flood  heights  through- 
out this  part  of  the  valley  will  be  greater  and  the  land  overflowed  more  fre- 
quently. In  this  case,  either  the  improvement  will  have  to  be  continued 
downstream  or  else  the  landowners  will  have  to  abandon  the  bottom  land. 
This  is  the  widest  part  of  the.  valley  and  presents  ideal  conditions  for  profit- 
able reclamation.  However,  there  is  little  or  no  interest  taken  in  the  bottom 
land  and  it  is  likely  to  remain  in  its  present  useless  state  for  some  time  to 
come. 

The  overflowed  area  along  Crooked  Creek  is  from  a  quarter  to  one 
and  a  half  miles  in  width.  Also  along  Lost  Creek  is  a  small  amount  of 
bottom  land  subject  to  overflow. 

In  all,  from  Carlyle  to  the  mouth  of  the  Kaskaskia  and  including  the 
tributary  streams,  there  are  approximately  71,800  acres  of  land  which  are 
practically  useless. 

Shoal  Creek  is  the  largest  tributary  and  drains  most  of  Montgomery, 
Bond,  and  part  of  Clinton  counties.  At  the  extreme  upper  end  of  its  water- 
shed, six  districts  have  been  formed,  the  largest  of  which  has  3,720  acres, 
and  their  combined  area  is  10,000  acres.  All  are  providing  satisfactory 
drainage  to  the  land. 

The  Blue  Grass  District,  3,480  acres,  is  now  being  organized  about  six 
miles  north  of  Hillsboro.     The  topography  of  Montgomery  County  is  such 


KASKASKIA  RIVER   WATERSHED  171 

that  little  artificial  drainage  is  required.  Considerable  damage  occurs  to  the 
crops  raised  in  the  Shoal  Creek  valley.  There  are  approximately  8,400  acres 
between  Litchfield  and  Hillsboro  and  the  mouth  of  Dry  Fork.  The  land- 
owners are  not  very  much  concerned  about  the  situation  and  there  is  little 
likelihood  of  any  work  being  done  in  the  immediate  future. 

However  through  the  two  southern  townships  in  Bond  County  the  land- 
owners are  determined  to  prevent  the  flooding  of  their  land  if  possible,  and 
the  upper  Shoal  Creek  District  has  just  been  organized  and  commissioners 
appointed.     The  proposed  plans  consist  entirely  of  stream  straightening. 

Directly  south  of  the  above  district,  the  landowners  in  Clinton  County 
are  proposing  to  form  the  Lower  Shoal  Creek  District  for  continuing  the 
work  of  channel  correction.  There  is  not  as  much  enthusiasm  shown  here 
and  organization  is  proceeding  more  slowly.  The  lower  district  begins  at  the 
Bond-Clinton  County  line  and  extends  to  about  three  miles  south  of  Breese. 

Both  of  these  projects  should  prove  successful  owing  to  the  large  fall 
available  and  to  the  sandy  nature  of  the  soil.  It  is  expected  that  the  channel 
correction  will  eliminate  all  but  the  extreme  floods  which  occur  on  an  average 
of  once  in  ten  years.    The  estimated  cost  of  the  upper  project  is  $25  an  acre. 

Along  the  East  Fork  of  Shoal  Creek  for  about  15  miles  above  its  mouth, 
the  valley  overflows  for  a  width  of  over  one-quarter  mile.  It  is  estimated 
that  there  are  4,500  acres  in  this  strip. 

South  of  Old  Ripley  Post  Office  lies  a  tract  of  some  1,500  acres  which 
needs  drainage.  Petitions  have  been  started  here  several  times,  but  nothing 
definite  has  resulted. 

Silver  Creek  is  an  important  tributary  of  the  Kaskaskia.  It  has  its 
source  in  Macoupin  County  and  flows  southward  through  Madison  and  St. 
Clair  counties  and  empties  into  the  river  at  New  Athens. 

In  the  northeast  corner  of  Madison  County,  the  New  Douglas  District 
No.  1  is  being  organized  to  drain  1,480  acres  of  level  land  on  the  divide 
between  Silver  and  Shoal  Creeks. 

The  Silver  Creek  District,  situated  about  seven  miles  east  of  Edwards- 
ville  and  containing  1,100  acres  is  the  only  organized  tract  in  that  portion  of 
Madison  County  within  the  Kaskaskia  watershed. 

In  St.  Clair  County  the  overflow  along  this  creek  is  more  serious,  and 
in  1912  the  creek  through  O'Fallon  Township  was  dredged  by  the  Silver 
Creek  District  No.  1.  There  are  4,190  acres  benefited  by  this  improvement 
and  the  assessment  was  $22.25  an  acre.  The  land  was  worth  $15  an  acre 
in  1912,  while  its  present  value  is  about  $70.  Some  overflow  was  reported 
along  Ogles  Creek  which  enters  the  north  end  of  the  district. 

Silver  Creek  District  No.  2  is  now  being  formed  just  below  to  continue 
the  improvement  for  another  seven  miles.  Approximately  6,520  acres  are 
proposed  for  this  district,  but  it  should  contain  two  or  three  times  as  much. 
On  the  east  from  Lebanon  to  beyond  Mascoutah  there  are  about  10,000  acres 


172  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

which  need  draining  very  badly.  A  petition  is  now  being  circulated  in  this 
area,  but  is  meeting  with  strong  opposition,  an  organization  having  been 
formed  to  fight  it.  There  is  no  question  but  that  the  land  is  worth  reclaim- 
ing, and  that  it  can  be  easily  and  economically  done,  but  it  is  being  opposed 
on  the  ground  that  the  land  is  too  poor,  and  that  it  is  just  a  scheme  for  the 
lawyers  and  engineers  to  make  money. 

Also  on  the  west  there  is  a  similar  tract  which  extends  almost  to  Belle- 
ville and  contains  about  7,500  acres.  Southeast  of  Mascoutah  is  another 
wet  tract  covering  about  5,000  acres. 

In  the  twelve  miles  below  Belleville  along  Richland  Creek,  four  districts 
have  been  formed  for  straightening  the  channel,  and  a  fifth,  the  North  Rich- 
land Creek  District,  200  acres,  is  now  being  organized  just  outside  of  Belle- 
ville. The  four  districts  are  named  Richland  Creek  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  and  4  and 
contain  2,710,  2,150,  1,900,  and  700  acres,  respectively.  These  are  all  suc- 
cessful. 

Below  District  No.  4,  the  creek  is  subject  to  backwater  from  the  river 
and  its  reclamation  is  dependent  upon  that  of  the  Kaskaskia  bottoms. 

East  of  Redbud  in  Randolph  County,  400  acres  along  a  tributary  of 
Horse  Creek  are  organized  in  the  Horse  Prairie  District. 

West  of  Marissa  in  St.  Clair  County,  there  is  a  tract  of  some  10,000 
acres  of  wet  land  which  would  be  greatly  improved  by  drainage. 

A  summation  of  the  drainage  status  in  the  Kaskaskia  watershed,  is  as 
follows : 

1.  Organized  districts  to  the  number  of  120  and  containing  a  total  of 
419,640  acres  have  been  formed.  This  area  represents  11.6  per  cent  of  the 
entire  watershed. 

2.  There  are  11  districts  now  in  various  stages  of  formation  with  a 
combined  area  of  103,070  acres,  which  is  2.8  per  cent  of  the  watershed  area. 
Of  this  area  36,550  acres  are  now  contained  in  the  eight  organized  districts 
in  Fayette  County  which  are  part  of  the  new  outlet  district. 

3.  There  are  137,800  acres  of  overflow  land  in  the  river  and  creek 
bottoms  for  which  no  provision  has  been  or  is  being  made. 

4.  Upland  areas  needing  drainage  to  the  extent  of  41,500  acres  are 
shown  on  the  accompanying  map.  This  is  only  a  partial  list  as  this  phase 
of  the  investigation  is  incomplete. 

5.  Of  the  total  area  originally  in  need  of  drainage,  181,300  acres,  or 
27  per  cent  remain. 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  said  that  the  upland  areas,  especially  at  the  upper 
end  of  the  watershed,  have  been  well  taken  care  of,  and  that  the  reclamation 
problem  is  confined  mainly  to  the  immediate  valley  of  the  river.  The  future 
depends  largely  upon  the  success  of  the  Okaw  Valley  Outlet  District.  If 
successful,  the  landowners  below  Carlyle  will  undoubtedly  continue  the  in- 
provement  in  self  defense  though  they  may  be  averse  to  doing  so.     If  the 


KASKASKIA  RIVER   WATERSHED  173 

district  fails  to  organize,  after  seven  years  of  hard  work  on  the  part  of  its 
promoters,  the  land  will  remain  in  its  present  almost  useless  condition  until 
such  a  time  as  the  large  majority  of  the  owners  are  sufficiently  informed 
as  to  the  economic  benefits  of  reclamation  to  realize  the  loss  they  are  sus- 
taining yearly  by  reason  of  their  present  nearsighted  policy. 


CHAPTER  XXII— SOUTH   FORK  OF   THE   SANGAMON   RIVER 

WATERSHED. 

The  watershed  of  South  Fork  of  the  Sangamon  River  covers  1,130 
square  miles  lying  in  Macon,  Shelby,  Christian,  Montgomery,  Macoupin,  and 
Sangamon  counties. 

The  river  rises  in  the  southwestern  corner  of  Christian  County  and  flows 
in  a  northwesterly  direction  to  its  junction  with  Sangamon  River  south  of 
Riverton. 

The  principal  tributaries  are  Flat  Branch,  Bear  Creek,  Horse  Creek,  and 
Sugar  Creek. 

Along  the  river  and  its  tributaries  are  approximately  24,900  acres  of 
land  subject  to  more  or  less  serious  overflow.  The  width  of  overflow  varies 
from  a  quarter  to  one  mile  in  width  as  shown  on  the  accompanying  map. 
Nothing  has  been  done  toward  reclaiming  any  of  this  land.  Due  to  the  large 
amount  of  artificial  drainage  of  the  upland  prairie  land,  conditions  in  the 
bottom  land  are  worse  than  they  formerly  were.  Very  little  is  cultivated  and 
the  water  stands  in  the  bottoms  from  one  to  two  weeks  at  a  time  several  times 
a  year.  The  high  ground  is  wrell  marked,  the  terrace  lands  rising  abruptly 
to  a  height  of  40  feet  or  more.  The  river  channel  is  very  crooked.  Its 
immediate  channel  is  rather  deep  but  is  filled  with  willows  and  fallen  trees. 
The  soil  is  extremely  fertile  and  the  land  is  well  worth  reclaiming.  East  of 
Taylorville  an  area  of  900  acres  has  been  protected  from  overflow  by  a 
privately   constructed   levee   which   cost   about   $27,000.     The   channel   was 


Table  23- 

—Drainage  data  for  the  South  Fork  of  Sc 

■ngamon  River 

watershed 

Refer- 
ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

Organized  drainage  districts 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 


Union  No.  1,  Milan  and  South  Macon 

Flat  Branch  No.  2 

Prairietown  Mutual  No.  4 

Union  No.  4,  Assumption  and  Flat  Branch 

Union  No.  1,  Flat  Branch  and  Assumption 

Flat  Branch  Mutual  No.  1 

Rural  No.  1 

Assumption  No.  5 

Union  No.  2,  Assumption  and  Rural 

Assumption  No.  4 

Rural  Mutual  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Pana  and  Assumption  (Lake  Fork) 

Pana  No.  la 

Rosamond  No.  4 

Rosamond  No.  2 


Macon 

Acres 
1,305 

Shelby 

15,300 

Christian 

440 

Christian-Shelby 

1,075 

Shelby-Christian 

2,520 

Shelby 

1,300 

Shelby 

680 

Christian 

680 

Christian-Shelby 

1,080 

Christian 

550 

Shelby 

680 

Christian 

12,320 

Christian 

Christian 

600 

Christian 

1,280 

alnside  Union  No.   1,  Pana  Assumption. 


(174) 


SOUTH    FORK    OF    THE    SANGAMON    RIVER    WATERSHED 


175 


Table  23. — Drainage  data  for  the  South  Fork  of  Sangamon  River  watershed — Continued 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


Rosamond  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Rosamond  and  Greenwood 

Rosamond  No.  3 

Union  No.  3,  Pana  and  Assumption  (Big  George). 

Mutual,  Locust,  Pana  and  Assumption 

Assumption  No.  1 

Assumption  No.  3 

Assumption  No.  6 

Assumption  No.  2 

Union  No.  1,  Locust  and  May 

Union  No.  2,  May  and  Locust 

Union  No.  3,  May  and  Locust 

Union  No.  1,  Assumption  and  May 

Assumption  No.  7 

Union  No.  5,  Assumption  and  Prairietown 

Mutual  No.  1,  Prairietown  (Peabody) 

Prairietown  No.  1 

Mutual  No.  2,  Prairietown 

Union  No.  1,  Prairietown  and  Pleasant  View 

Stonington  No.  4 

Stonington  No.  1 

Stonington  Mutual  No.  2 

Clear  Creek  Special 

Union  No.  1,  May  and  Taylorville 

Taylorville  No.  1 

Taylorville  Mutual  No.  1 

Taylorville  No.  2 :  .  . . 

Taylorville  Mutual  No.  2 

Hay-Heddin  Mutual  No.  1 

Buckhart  Mutual  No.  1 

Buckhart  No.  1 

Buckhart  No.  2 

Vanderveer  (Private) 

Greenwood  Mutual  No.  1 

Glover  Special 

Ricks  No.  1  (Hog  Lake) 

Union  No.  3,  Picks  and  Rountree 

Union  No.  4,  Ricks  and  Rountree 

Union  No.  1,  Ricks  and  Rountree 

Union  No.  2,  Ricks  and  Rountree 

Bug  River  Special 

King  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  King  and  Ricks 

Union  No.  2,  King  and  Ricks 

Union  No.  1,  King  and  Harvel 

Harvel  No.  1  (Lone  Elm) 

Union  No.  3,  King  and  Harvel 

Union  No.  1,  Bois  D'Arc  and  Harvel  (Horse  Creek) 

Union  No.  2,  King  and  Bois  D'Arc 

Union  No.  1,  King  and  Bois  D'Arc 

Lloyd-Lemon  Mutual 

Union  No.  1,  King  and  Bear  Creek 

Southfork  No.  1 

Southfork  No.  3 

Southfork  No.  2 

West  Clear  Creek  Special 


Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christia 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian-Macon 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 

Christian-Montgomery 
Christian 

Christian-Montg  mery 
Christian-Montgomery 
Christian-Montgomery 
Christian-Montgomery 
Christian-Montgomery 
Christian 
Christian 

Christian-Montgomery 
Christian-Montgomery 
Montgomery 
Christian-Montgomery 
Montgomery 
Christian-Montgomery 
Christian-Montgomery 
Christian 
Christian 
Christian 
Christi  in 
Christian 

Christian-Montgomery 
Sangamon 


Acres 

400 

830 
1,040 
7,480 
2,040 
1,520 
3,040 
1,160 

860 
3,600 
2,040 
1,355 
1,450 
1,610 
1,520 

390 

660 

390 
1,680 
2,500 
1,420 
1,210 
4,040 
2,210 
1,760 
1,040 
1,220 

840 
1,300 

460 
1,880 
1,220 
1,760 

720 
1,920 
3,505 

920 
1,430 

620 

915 
5,835 
1,040 
1,500 
4,790 
1,400 

755 
2,965 
2,975 
2,660 
3,750 

750 
1 ,240 
2,400 
1 ,480 
1,600 

4,730 


176 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  23. — Drainage  data  for  the  South  Fork  of  Sangamon  River  watershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

72 

Union  No.  3,  King  and  Bois  D'Arc 

Christian-Montgomery 

Montgomery 

Montgomery 

Montgomery 

Montgomery 

Montgomery- 
Macoupin 

Sangamon 

Sangamon 

Montgomery- 
Sangamon 

Sangamon-Macoupin 

Sangamon 

Acres 

1,050 

340 

860 

1,600 

1,450 

2,280 

850 

1,645 

660 

35 

640 

73 

74 
75 
76 

77 

78 
79 
80 

81 

82 

Bois  D'Arc  Mutual  No.  1  (Dunlap) 

Bois  D'Arc  No.  2 

Bois  D'Arc  No.  3 

Bois  D'Arc  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Bois  D'Arc  and  Girard 

Pawnee  No.  1 

Divernon  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Bois  D'Arc  and  Divernon 

Union  No.  1,  Virden  and  Auburn 

Talkington  Mutual  No.  1 

Total 

157,645 

Districts  being  organised 


83 
84 
85 
86 


Flat  Hollow  Special 

Buckhart  No.  3 

King  No.  2 

Divernon  No.  2  (By  User) 

Total 


Shelby 
Christian 
Christian 
Sangamon 


15,700 

1,400 

1,760 

640 


19,500 


Overflozued  areas 


87 
88 

Along  Lick  Creek 

Along  South  Fork  of  Sangamon  and  Tributaries.  .  .  . 

Total 

Sangamon 
Christian-Sangamon 

5,100 
19,800 

24,900 

Upland  areas  needing  drainage 


89 


Northeast  of  Morrisonville . 


Christian 


12,000 


straightened  for  a  distance  of  about  three  miles  and  the  material  all  deposited 
on  one  side  to  form  the  levee.  The  land  is  raising  abundant  crops,  where 
formerly  it  was  practically  useless. 

Northeast  of  Taylorville  16  districts  have  been  organized  for  draining 
the  upland  area.  The  combined  area  of  these  districts  is  24,475  acres.  The 
largest  contains  4,040  acres  and  most  of  them  between  1,000  and  1,500  acres. 
Several  of  them  are  mutual  districts  and  all  were  organized  under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act.  A  new  district,  Buckhart  No.  3,  is  now  being  formed  and 
contains  1,400  acres. 


SOUTH    FORK    OF   THE    SANGAMON    RIVER    WATERSHED  177 

At  the  upper  end  of  Flat  Branch  in  Shelby  County,  15,300  acres  were 
organized  into  Flat  Branch  District  No.  2.  All  that  was  done  here  was  a 
small  amount  of  dredging  along  Flat  Branch,  which  gave  very  little  benefit 
to  the  land.  It  was  reported  that  this  area  was  organized  to  prevent  the 
organization  of  one  or  more  smaller  districts  with  more  comprehensive  drain- 
age improvements  in  view. 

To  the  south  of  this  tract,  the  Flat  Hollow  Special  District  proposes  to 
give  drainage  to  15,700  acres  in  Shelby  County. 

The  eastern  portion  of  Christian  County  is  entirely  covered  with  drain- 
age districts  to  the  number  of  32,  and  their  combined  acreage  is  54,200  acres. 
The  largest  of  these  is  the  Union  No.  1  of  Pana  and  Assumption  townships 
which  drains  12,320  acres.  The  next  largest  is  the  Union  No.  3  of  the  same 
township  which  embraces  7,480  acres.  The  majority,  however,  are  small 
districts  with  between  1,000  and  1,500  acres,  though  there  are  eleven  with 
less  than  1,000  acres. 

There  is  a  third  large  group  along  the  Christian-Montgomery  County 
line.  There  are  32  districts  here,  with  a  total  area  of  60,550  acres.  The 
largest  district  in  this  group  is  the  Bug  River  Special  with  5,835  acres.  One 
new  district,  King  Township  No.  2,  is  now  organizing  to  drain  1,760  acres. 
And  to  the  northwest  in  Sangamon  County  640  acres  are  being  incorporated 
into  the  Divernon  District  No.  2.     The  later  is  a  User  District. 

Table  23  gives  the  drainage  data  for  this  watershed  from  which  it  is 
seen  that  there  are  in  all  82  organized  districts  representing  157,645  acres 
or  21.7  per  cent  of  the  watershed  area.  Also  there  are  four  new  districts, 
proposing  to  give  better  drainage  to  19,500  acres,  which  represents  2.7  per 
cent  of  the  watershed  area. 

Northeast  of  Morrisonville  is  a  tract  of  some  12,000  acres  which  needs 
better  drainage  and  which  will  undoubtedly  be  incorporated  into  districts  in 
the  near  future. 

While  there  are  an  unusually  large  number  of  districts  in  this  water- 
shed, they  are  nearly  all  small  ones,  and  present  quite  a  contrast  to  those  in 
Piatt,  Champaign  and  Douglas  counties  where  drainage  has  been  planned  on 
a  more  comprehensive  scale. 

A  large  number  of  the  districts  are  tile  districts,  and  many  which  orig- 
inally had  small  open  ditches  are  substituting  large  tile  for  them,  with  shallow 
overflow  channel  over  them.  The  result  has  been  that  the  water  does  not 
run  off  as  readily  as  before  and  the  loss  of  occasional  crops  is  experienced. 
In  June,  1919,  a  large  part  of  this  upland  area  was  flooded  for  over  a  week. 

In  the  western  part  of  the  watershed,  no  organized  drainage  has  been 
needed.  A  large  amount  of  private  tiling  work  has  been  done  and  the  land 
is  well  drained. 

The  drainage  of  the  uplands  has  been  very  satisfactory  for  the  most 
part.     Land  which  was  worth  from  $60  to  $125  an  acre  is  now  valued  at 


178  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

from  $250  to  $300;. part  of  this,  however,  is  due  to  the  natural  increase  in 
the  price  of  all  farm  lands. 

With  the  exception  of  the  wet  area  northeast  of  Morrisonville  all  the 
large  upland  areas  have  been  drained  and  future  drainage  here  must  be  in 
small  scattered  areas. 

The  big  problem  remaining  is  the  bottom  land.  Here,  as  in  similar 
valleys,  heretofore  discussed,  the  solution  consists  mainly  in  channel  improve- 
ment. The  valley  as  a  whole  is  too  narrow  to  levee,  hence  more  attention 
can  be  profitably  given  to  the  channel  than  is  the  case  in  the  wider  valleys 
where  levees  must  supplement  channel  correction.  Any  improvement  under- 
taken here  should  take  into  consideration  the  entire  valley.  This  means  an 
outlet  district  embracing  all  the  bottom  lands. 

By  careful  study  it  will  be  possible  to  reclaim  a  large  portion  of  the 
bottom  lands  in  this  watershed. 


CHAPTER  XXIII— MACOUPIN  CREEK  WATERSHED 

The  Macoupin  Creek  watershed  contains  approximately  970  square  miles 
and  covers  portions  of  Montgomery,  Macoupin,  Greene,  and  Jersey  counties. 

The  creek  has  its  source  in  the  northwest  corner  of  Montgomery  County 
and  flows  in  a  southwesterly  direction  to  a  point  about  six  miles  southwest 
of  Carlinville,  and  thence  in  a  general  westerly  direction  to  the  Illinois  River 
near  Titus. 

Its  principal  tributary  is  Otter  Creek  which  drains  the  northern  half  of 
Macoupin  County. 

There  are  approximately  40,000  acres  in  the  bottoms  along  Macoupin 
and  Otter  creeks,  of  which  about  25,000  acres  have  been  or  are  being  im- 
proved. The  flood  plains  of  these  creeks  are  from  a  quarter  to  half  a 
mile  in  width  and  are  subject  to  frequent  overflow.  Between  January  and 
June,  1920,  Macoupin  Creek  was  out  of  its  banks  ten  times.  All  the  land- 
owners consulted  agreed  that  during  the  last  ten  years,  the  bottom  has  not 
yielded  an  average  of  20  per  cent  of  a  crop.  One  landowner  in  1920  was 
able  to  harvest  only  300  bushels  of  wheat  from  300  acres.  The  statement 
was  made  by  one  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  conditions  that  the  crop  loss 
in  1919  due  to  overflow  was  at  least  $75,000.  The  land  can  scarcely  be  sold 
at  $40  to  $50  an  acre,  though  the  soil  is  much  better  than  that  of  the  adjoin- 
ing upland  which  brings  $200  an  acre. 

In  all  only  19  drainage  districts  have  been  organized  in  this  watershed 
with  a  combined  area  of  31,470  acres.  The  name  and  size  of  each  of  these 
is  given  in  Table  24,  and  their  locations  are  shown  on  the  map. 

It  will  be  observed  that  seven  of  the  districts  are  grouped  in  the  extreme 
eastern  portion  of  the  watershed,  and  abut  a  still  larger  group  in  the  South 
Fork  watershed.  The  land  here  is  very  flat  and  organized  drainage  was  a 
necessity.    They  are  all  operating  quite  satisfactorily. 

Ten  small  districts  are  scattered  through  Macoupin  County  containing 
a  total  of  11,120  acres. 

The  largest  district  in  the  watershed  is  the  Union  No.  1  of  Ruyle  and 
Chesterfield  with  5,500  acres  in  the  Macoupin  Creek  bottoms.  The  work  of 
this  district  consisted  of  channel  improvement.  Joining  this  area  on  the  east 
is  the  Macoupin  Creek  District  which  has  about  completed  its  organization. 
Its  average  width  is  less  than  one  mile  and  its  length  is  about  nine  miles.  It 
is  also  a  stream  straightening  project. 

The  Panhandle  District  is  located  in  the  north  central  portion  of  Jersey 
County,  and  contains  2,165  acres.  It  is  entirely  south  of  Macoupin  Creek 
and  no  changes  were  made  in  the  channel.  The  district  has  a  main  ditch 
through  the  center  of  its  area. 

Beginning  at  Taylor  Creek  and  extending  to  the  Illinois  River  bottom, 

(179) 


180 


LAND  DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  24. — Drainage  data  for  the  Macoupin  Creek  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organised  drainage  districts 


9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 


Irish  Flats  Special 

Union  No.  1,  Pitman  and  Bois  D'Arc. 
Pitman  No.  4 


Pitman  No.  6 

Pitman  No.  2 

Pitman  No.  1 

Pitman  No.  5 

John  Ball  Mutual  Special. 


Union  No.  1,  Girard  and  Virden 

North  Palmyra  No.  1 

South  Otter  No.  1 ., 

South  Otter  No.  2 

Honey  Point  No.  4 

Corn  Nail  Union,  Honey  Point 

Honey  Point  No.  5 

Hudelleson-Meiners 

Gillespie  No.  1 

Union  No.  1,  Ruyle  and  Chesterfield 
Panhandle 


Total. 


Montgomery 
Montgomery 
Montgomery 
Montgomery 
Montgomery 
Montgomery 
Montgomery 
Montgomery- 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Macoupin-Jersey 
Jersey 


Acres 

4,400 

1,020 

870 

490 

4,460 

715 

725 

385 
2,240 

900 
1,500 
1,700 

600 

500 
1,600 

700 
1,000 
5,500 
2,165 


31,470 


Districts  being  organised 


20 

21 
22 


Barnett  Special . . 

Macoupin  Creek. 
Macoupin  Creek 

Total 


Montgomery- 
Macoupin 
Macoupin 
Greene-Jersey 


1,240 

4,500 

14,370 


20,110 


Overflowed  areas 


23 
24 


Along  Macoupin  Creek 

Along  Otter,  Joes  and  Macoupin  Creeks. 


Total 


Macoupin 
Macoupin-Greene- 
Jersey 


4,000 
9,300 


13,300 


all  the  low  land  is  being  organized  into  the  Macoupin  Creek  Drainage  Dis- 
trict. Commissioners  have  been  appointed  and  contracts  for  the  construction 
work  will  in  all  probability  be  let  during  the  summer  of  1921.  According  to 
the  plans,  the  length  of  the  new  channel  is  50  per  cent  less  than  the  present 
one.  The  district  varies  from  one  to  two  miles  in  width  and  contains  14,370 
acres.     The  estimated  cost  is  about  $40  an  acre. 


MACOUPIN   CREEK   WATERSHED  181 

With  the  two  new  districts  completed,  all  of  Macoupin  Creek  west  of 
Carlinville  will  have  been  straightened,  with  the  exception  of  a  five-mile 
stretch  in  the  northeast  corner  of  Jersey  County. 

Above  Carlinville  the  valley  becomes  narrower,  but  there  are  about 
4,000  acres  which  are  damaged  sufficiently  by  flooding  to  warrant  an  improve- 
ment in  the  channel.  However,  the  opening  up  of  the  channel  below  by  the 
new  districts  will  be  of  considerable  value  to  this  upper  portion  of  the  stream. 

Along  Otter  Creek  and  its  tributaries  and  Macoupin  Creek  between  the 
Panhandle  and  the  Union  districts,  there  are  9,300  acres,  approximately, 
which  are  subject  to  overflow. 

The  topography  in  the  western  portion  of  the  watershed  is  rolling  in 
character  and  possesses  good  natural  drainage  and  there  is  little  likelihood 
of  any  districts  being  organized.  The  eastern  portion  is  flatter  but  there 
are  no  large  areas  that  need  combined  drainage.  The  districts  which  have 
already  been  formed  here  are  small  and  any  future  districts  will  likewise 
cover  only  small  areas.  One  such  district,  the  Barnett  Special,  is  now  organ- 
izing along  the  Macoupin-Montgomery  County  line.  It  will  contain  1,240 
acres. 

Drainage  development  in  this  watershed  is  very  encouraging,  since  the 
work  now  planned  is  about  65  per  cent  as  large  as  all  the  work  which  has 
been  done  in  the  past. 

Of  the  65,000  acres,  approximately,  originally  in  need  of  drainage,  about 
14,000  acres  or  21  per  cent  remain  unreclaimed. 


CHAPTER  XXIV— LITTLE  WABASH  WATERSHED 

The  Little  Wabash  watershed  covers  a  territory  of  2,180  square  miles 
lying  in  Coles,  Cumberland,  Shelby,  Effingham,  Jasper,  Clay,  Richland, 
Wayne,  Edwards,  and  White  counties. 

The  Little  Wabash  River  has  its  source  in  Coles  County  and  flows 
southward,  with  many  turns  and  twists,  to  Louisville  in  Clay  County,  thence 
southeasterly  to  the  mouth  of  the  Fox  River,  and  then  again  southerly  to  its 
outlet  in  the  Wabash  River  in  Gallatin  County. 

Its  principal  tributaries — aside  from  the  Skillet  Fork  River,  which  is 
treated  separately  in  this  report — are  Elm  Creek,  Fox  River,  Muddy  Creek, 
and  Salt  Creek. 

The  Little  Wabash  valley  has  been  subject  to  frequent  overflows  as  far 
back  as  any  record  exists  or  the  recollection  of  the  oldest  inhabitant  extends. 
The  most  serious  floods  occurred  in  1875,  1876,  1897,  1898,  1904,  1905,  1906, 
1913,  and  1915.  The  greatest  of  these  was  the  March,  1898,  flood  which 
covered  all  the  bottoms  to  a  depth  of  from  five  to  nine  feet. 

The  valley  varies  from  one  to  five  miles  in  width  and  contains  approxi- 
mately 137,600  acres  subject  to  overflow,  inclusive  of  bottom  lands  along 
tributaries.  Of  this  amount  some  42,000  acres  is  in  districts,  but  since  they 
have  no  levees  the  land  is  still  largely  subject  to  overflow. 

The  soil  is  very  fertile  and  that  in  Clay  County  is  classified  in  the  soil 
report  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  of  the  University  of  Illinois 
as  deep  gray  silt  loam  and  mixed  sandy  loam.  The  report  states  that  this 
is  the  most  valuable  important  soil  type  in  Clay  County. 

Table  25  gives  the  drainage  data  for  this  watershed,  from  which  it  is 
seen  that  34  districts. with  a  combined  area  of  90,070  acres  have  been  organ- 
ized and  that  three  districts  with  a  total  of  7,160  acres  are  now  being  formed. 

About  one-half  of  the  districts  are  situated  in  the  prairie  area  at  the 
upper  end  of  the  watershed,  while  the  other  half  are  in  the  river  and  creek 
bottoms. 

Coles  County  has  nine  districts  in  this  watershed  with  an  aggregate  area 
of  13,600  acres.  The  topography  here  is  slightly  rolling  and  is  typical  of 
the  corn  belt  area.  The  streams  are  shallow  and  rather  sluggish.  The  upper 
prairie  has  been  well  developed  as  regards  drainage.  Most  of  the  districts 
are  old  and  have  given  satisfaction.  It  is  the  general  opinion  that  this  terri- 
tory has  all  the  drainage  that  it  needs. 

In  Cumberland  County,  6,020  acres  are  distributed  among  six  districts, 
all  of  which  have  afforded  satisfactory  results  with  the  possible  exception  of 
District  No.  1,  Neoga  township,  which  is  now  involved  in  some  litigation. 
The  commissioners  report  that  the  district  has  not  accomplished  its  purpose, 
but  nevertheless  the  value  of  the  land  is  about  the  same  as  that  in  neighbor- 
ing districts.     Formerly  these  lands  brought  from  $50  to  $80  an  acre,  while 

(182) 


LITTLE    WABASH    WATERSHED 


183 


Table  25. — Drainage  data  for  the  Little  Wabash  watershed 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


Union  No.  1,  Mattoon  and  Whitley 
Bell 


Majors 

Little  Wabash 

District  No.  1,  Mattoona 

Ash  Grove  No.  2  (By  User) 

Paradise  No.  3 

Gannaway,  Ellis,  Law,  Jones  Mutual. 

Paradise  No.  2 

Paradise  No.  1 

Neoga,  No.  3 

Ash  Grove  No.  1  (User) 

Neoga  Village 

Neoga  No  2 

Neoga  No.  1 

Neoga  No.  10 

Union  No.  1,  Neoga  and  Spring  Point. 

St.  Francis 

North  Muddy 

Little  Wabash  and  Big  Muddy 

West  Decker 

Moutray  Slough 

Union  No.  1 

Elm  River 

Borah 

Golden  Gate 

Union  No.  1,  Leech  and  Massilon 

Leech  and  Grover 

Woods 

Randolph  No.  1 

Partridge  No.  1 

Hawthorne  Mutual  No.  3 

Emma  No.  4 

Emma  No.  5 


Total . 


Acres 

Coles 

2,100 

Coles 

540 

Coles 

1,260 

Coles 

2,780 

Coles 

940 

Shelby 

1,720 

Coles 

650 

Coles 

200 

Coles 

280 

Coles-Cumberland 

4,840 

Cumberland 

770 

Shelby 

1,480 

Cumberland 

1,100 

Cumberland 

200 

Cumberland 

1,830 

Cumberland 

1,380 

Shelby-Cumberland 

720 

Effingham 

750 

Jasper 

1,200 

Clay 

7,500 

Richland 

1,580 

Wayne 

2,400 

Wayne-Edwards 

12,000 

Wayne 

1,400 

Wayne 

10,700 

Wayne 

3,560 

Wayne 

4,500 

Wayne 

4,530 

Wayne-White 

6,000 

White 

4,280 

White 

2,000 

White 

1,260 

White 

2,240 

White 

1,380 

90,070 


Districts  being  organised 


Strassburg . 
Massilon . . 
Big  Creek. 

Total . . . 


Shelby 
Wayne 
Edwards 


960 
2,200 
4,000 


,160 


Overflowed  area 


Along  Little  Wabash 

Along  Big  Muddy  Creek . .  . 
Along  Little  Wabash  River 


Shelby-Effingham- 
Clay 
Clay-Richland 
Clay-Richland-Wayne 


54,920 
5,000 
3,500 


aOutside  of  other  districts. 


184 


LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 


Table  25. — Drainage  data  for  the  Little  Wabash  watershed — Concluded 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


County 


Area 


41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

46 


Along  Fox  River 

Area  north  of  Elm  River  District 

Along  Little  Wabash  East  of  Union  No.  2. 

Along  Village  Creek 

Along  Little  Wabash 


Along  Little  Wabash  North  of  Carmi, 
Total 


Richland-Edwards 
Wayne 
Edwards 
Edwards 
Wayne-Edwards- 
White 
White 


10,100 
1,500 
4,000 
1,300 

15,000 
1,000 


96,320 


Uplands  areas  meeting  drainage 


47 

North  of  Shumway 

Effingham 

Effingham 

Effingham 

Effingham-Jasper 

Effingham-Jasper 

Jasper 

Effingham-Jasper 

Effingham 

Effingham-Jasper 

Effingham 

1,260 

48 

South  of  Welton 

1,802 

49 

Southwest  of  Montrose 

1,800 

50 

Southeast  of  Montrose 

2,400 

51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

North  of  Dieterich 

Southeast  of  Wheeler 

South  of  Dieterich 

Northeast  of  Winterrowd 

West  of  Latona 

Around  Winterrowd 

Total 

2,000 
1,500 
2,510 
1,000 
3,500 
3,500 

21,290 

now  they  are  valued  at  from  $125  to  $200  an  acre.  Throughout  this  county 
there  are  small  scattered  areas  of  100  acres  or  so  in  extent  which  needs  better 
drainage.  These  are  not  shown  on  the  map,  since  they  can  be  taken  care  of 
by  individual  effort. 

The  eastern  tier  of  townships  in  Shelby  County  lies  within  this  water- 
shed. Two  districts,  Ash  Grove  No.  1  and  No.  2  are  situated  here.  The 
former  contains  1,720  acres  and  the  latter  1,480  acres  and  both  are  User 
districts.  The  Strassburg  District  is  now  organizing  960  acres  in  this  area. 
The  overflow  along  the  river  in  this  county  averages  a  good  half  mile  in 
width. 

Nearly  all  of  Effingham  County  is  in  the  Little  Wabash  watershed. 
The  St.  Francis  District,  750  acres,  has  just  been  organized  and  is  now  in 
the  classification  stage.  There  are  two  other  areas  considering  organization, 
which  have  apparently  been  awaiting  the  outcome  of  the  St.  Francis  Dis- 
trict. In  all  probability  they  will  be  organized  soon.  They  are  shown  in 
green  on  the  map.  The  big  drainage  problem  in  this  county  is  the  preven- 
tion of  overflow  along  the  Little  Wabash  and  main  tributaries.  The  bottom 
lands  are  rich  and  raise  good  crops  whenever  the  river  permits ;  but  on  the 
average  only  about  one  out  of  four  or  five  crops  is  harvested.  Only  short 
season  crops  can  be  raised  with  any  degree  of  safety.     The  floods  rise  rapidly 


LITTLE   WABASH    WATERSHED  185 

and  last  from  two  to  ten  days.  The  tributary  creeks  have  about  the  same 
characteristics  except  that  they  are  subject  to  backwater  from  the  river.  The 
county  farm  adviser  is  doing  much  toward  creating  a  favorable  drainage 
sentiment.  He  has  prepared  a  map  of  the  county  showing  the  wet  lands 
which  should  be  organized  into  districts.  Any  plan  for  the  improvement  of 
the  river  below  should  not  fail  to  take  into  account  the  40,000  acres  in  Effing- 
ham County  which  will  undoubtedly  be  organized  eventually  into  districts 
which  will  result  in  a  much  greater  run-off. 

Jasper  County  has  only  one  district  in  this  watershed.  This  is  the 
North  Muddy,  1,200  acres,  which  is  just  completed.  Drainage  sentiment 
in  this  locality  seems  evenly  divided.  Several  wet  areas  are  shown  on  the 
map  which  are  feasible  drainage  projects.  There  is  also  a  small  amount  of 
overflow  along  the  creeks  in  the  southwest  corner  of  the  county. 

Clay  County  has  done  no  upland  drainage.  The  bottom  land  at  the 
mouth  of  Muddy  Creek  was  organized  in  1911  into  the  Little  Wabash  and 
Big  Muddy  District.  It  has  no  levees  and  its  7,500  acres  are  overflowed 
every  year.  The  present  value  of  the  land  is  about  $50  an  acre  which  is  an 
indication  that  the  project  has  not  been  a  success.  The  sentiment  in  this 
community  is  that  all  the  bottom  land  in  Clay,  Richland,  Wayne,  and  White 
counties  should  form  an  outlet  district  for  straightening  the  river ;  but  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  one  sufficiently  interested  to  give  the  necessary  time 
to  the  formation  of  such  a  district. 

In  1907  a  cooperative  agreement  was  made  between  the  State  Geological 
Survey,  the  Internal  Improvement  Commission  of  Illinois,  the  U.  S.  Geo- 
logical Survey,  and  the  Drainage  Investigations  Divisions  of  the  U.  S.  De- 
partment of  Agriculture  for  a  study  of  the  overflow  situation  along  the  Little 
Wabash  and  Skillet  Fork.  Surveys  were  made  in  1907-08  from  the  mouth  of 
the  stream  to  Louisville  in  Clay  County,  and  plans  for  the  protection  of  the 
overflowed  lands  were  published  in  1911  by  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commis- 
sion. This  report  gives  the  flooded  area  along  the  Little  Wabash  as  70,400 
acres.  Since  the  survey  stopped  at  Louisville  this  total  does  not  include  the 
overflow  above  that  point.  Above  Louisville  the  valley  will  average  one  and 
a  half  miles  in  width  to  the  north  line  of  Effingham  County. 

The  General  Assembly  in  1917  passed  an  act  providing  for  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Little  Wabash  drainage  district,  and  under  this  act  a  petition 
for  the  formation  of  such  a  district  to  include  all  the  overflowed  area  south 
of  the  Clay- Wayne  County  line  was  presented  to  the  Wayne  County  Court. 
The  petition  was  denied  and  later  the  1917  act  was  declared  unconstitutional 
and  was  repealed  by  the  1919  legislature.  However,  a  special  act  of  the  legis- 
lature is  not  necessary  since  it  is  possible  to  form  an  outlet  district  under  the 
provisions  of  Section  65a  of  the  drainage  laws,  and  the  landowners  along  the 
Skillet  Fork  are  now  organizing  such  a  district.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the 
Little  Wabash  Valley  will  follow  their  example. 


186  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

The  West  Decker  District  which  is  located  in  the  southwestern  corner 
of  Richland  County  was  organized  in  1910.  It  has  not  been  successful  and 
the  value  of  the  land  has  increased  only  about  $15  an  acre  due  to  the  improve- 
ment. There  are  about  10,100  acres  of  overflowed  land  along  Fox  River 
which  flows  north  and  south  through  the  center  of  this  county  and  empties 
into  the  Little  Wabash  near  the  village  of  Blood  in  Edwards  County.  The 
width  of  overflow  here  is  sufficient  to  warrant  a  district  for  the  purpose  of 
channel  improvement. 

Nearly  all  of  the  bottom  land  in  Wayne  County  is  in  organized  districts. 
As  none  of  them  has  levees,  they  are  subject  to  overflow  and  consequently 
are  only  partially  successful. 

The  Union  District  No.  1  of  Wayne  and  Edwards  counties  was  organ- 
ized in  1908  and  has  constructed  28  miles  of  ditches.  The  land  is  overflowed 
two  or  three  times  a  year  and  its  value  has  increased  very  little.  There  has 
been  a  number  of  sales  recently  at  from  $20  to  $40  an  acre.  The  commis- 
sioners are  planning  to  levee  the  district,  convert  one  of  the  existing  ditches 
into  a  diversion  channel  for  the  hill  waters,  and  install  a  pumping  plant.  The 
area  in  this  district  is  the  same  as  that  shown  in  Levee  District  No.  5  of  the 
Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission's  report.  In  planning  their  levee  system  the 
commissioners  and  engineers  have  received  the  cooperation  of  the  Drainage 
Investigations  Department  at  Washington.  When  completed  this  will  be  the 
only  district  in  Wayne  or  White  counties  which  will  be  satisfactorily 
reclaimed.  It  should  serve  as  an  example  to  the  other  districts.  But  it 
would  be  detrimental  to  this  valley  to  have  many  levees  built  before  the 
stream  itself  is  straightened. 

Just  south  of  the  Union  District  and  north  of  Village  Creek,  an  area  of 
2,200  acres  is  being  organized  into  the  Massilon  District.  No  levees  are  con- 
templated and  hence  complete  reclamation  will  not  be  obtained. 

The  Elm  River  District  was  organized  in  1909.  It  has  accomplished 
some  good  but  the  main  ditch  is  too  small  and  does  not  adequately  serve  all 
the  lands  in  the  district.  It  is  overflowed  more  or  less  every  year.  The  mar- 
ket value  of  the  land  is  about  $40  an  acre.  Above  this  district  there  is  a 
strip  of  1,500  acres  which  should  be  included. 

The  Borah  District  has  the  unique  distinction  of  never  having  com- 
pleted its  organization.  There  were  objections  to  the  assessment  roll  and  it 
has  never  been  approved  by  the  court.  Nevertheless  the  commissioners  have 
gone  ahead  and  constructed  23  miles  of  ditches  and  are  now  trying  to  collect 
assessments  from  the  objectors  on  the  grounds  that  they  accepted  payment 
for  the  right  of  way  through  their  lands  and  are  receiving  benefits  from  the 
improvement.  Part  of  this  district  is  overflowed  every  year  by  back  water 
from  the  Little  Wabash.  About  45  per  cent  of  the  area  is  not  satisfactorily 
drained. 

The   Leech   and   Grover   District,   organized   in   1905,   has   constructed 


LITTLE    WABASH    WATERSHED  187 

seven  miles  of  ditches.  The  upper  end  is  satisfactorily  drained  but  the  lower 
end  is  overflowed  at  certain  seasons.  The  commissioners  report  that  the 
district  should  be  enlarged  by  annexing  lands  at  both  ends.  Before  the  dis- 
trict was  organized  the  land  sold  for  $10  an  acre ;  now  it  brings  from  $25  to 
$100.  Sentiment  is  strong  in  this  community  for  State  aid  in  straightening 
the  Little  Wabash. 

The  Golden  Gate,  Leech  and  Massilon,  and  Woods  districts  are  quite 
similar  to  those  above  mentioned.  All  of  them  lack  satisfactory  outlets  and 
should  combine  with  other  districts  for  improving  the  channel. 

The  Randolph  District  in  White  County  which  was  organized  in  1907 
is  considered  very  successful.  It  has  seven  miles  of  ditches  and  ten  miles 
of  large  tile.  All  the  land  in  the  district  can  be  used.  The  value  of  the 
land  has  increased  from  about  $85  an  acre  to  from  $150  to  $200. 

The  Partridge  District  has  been  in  operation  since  1910.  The  land  is 
valued  at  from  $125  to  $150  an  acre,  though  it  is  subject  to  some  overflow. 
The  400  acres  in  Bumble  Bee  bend  should  be  annexed  according  to  the 
commissioners. 

Directly  south  of  the  above  area  lies  Hawthorne  District  No.  3  which 
was  organized  many  years  ago  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  Its  ditches 
have  become  silted  up  and  need  cleaning  out  badly. 

Two  of  the  Emma  Township  districts  are  in  this  watershed.  So  far  as 
could  be  determined,  they  have  been  satisfactory. 

Along  Big  Creek  in  Edwards  County,  a  district  of  some  4,000  acres  is 
being  promoted  which  should  provide  successful  drainage  for  this  area. 

A  glance  at  the  accompanying  map  shows  the  seriousness  of  the  over- 
flow problem  in  the  Little  Wabash  valley.  The  overflowed  areas  are  con- 
tinuous from  the  center  of  Shelby  County  through  Effingham,  Clay,  Richland, 
Wayne,  and  Edwards  counties  to  the  middle  of  White  County.  A  number  of 
its  larger  tributaries  are  also  subject  to  overflow.  A  total  of  96,320  acres, 
approximately,  are  thus  affected,  exclusive  of  the  area  in  organized  districts 
which  have  no  protection  from  overflow.  Such  areas  aggregate  at  least 
20,000  acres,  which  gives  a  total  of  about  115,000  acres  in  this  watershed 
which  are  subject  to  overflow. 

The  reclamation  of  this  area  of  rich  bottom  land  is  a  big  problem  which 
should  be  studied  as  a  unit.  The  most  difficult  part  of  the  problem  is  not 
that  of  financing  the  construction  of  the  necessary  drainage  works,  but  of 
perfecting  an  organization  over  such  a  large  area  under  the  petition  method 
required  by  the  drainage  law,  and  of  making  the  preliminary  engineering 
studies  which  are  necessary  before  intelligent  plans  of  reclamation  can  be 
made. 

It  is  legally  possible  to  organize  the  entire  valley  into  an  outlet  district, 
but  to  do  so  will  require  strong  leadership,  inexhaustible  patience  and  a  lot  of 


188  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

hard  work.  Most  of  the  landowners  are  willing  to  pay  their  part  of  the  cost, 
but  shrink  from  the  difficulties  of  organization. 

As  above  mentioned,  certain  preliminary  engineering  studies  should  be 
made  of  the  watershed  as  a  whole,  and  it  would  seem  that  the  making  of 
such  studies  might  very  properly  be  a  function  of  the  State  or  Federal 
Government.  It  would  be  a  misfortune  to  attempt  to  carry  out  certain 
phases  of  reclamation  in  a  haphazard  fashion,  several  groups  of  individuals 
working  independently  and  without  any  regard  as  to  the  effect  of  their  plans 
upon  other  areas.  A  comprehensive  plan  should  be  prepared  for  the  com- 
plete protection  of  the  whole  valley,  and  local  reclamation  left  to  the  con- 
venience of  the  landowners ;  but  there  should  be  some  authority  with  power 
to  supervise  such  local  work  to  insure  the  carrying  out  of  the  original  plans 
in  so  far  as  they  affect  surrounding  areas. 

The  straightening  and  dredging  of  the  river  will  not  solve  the  overflow 
problem  as  it  is  impracticable  on  account  of  cost  to  construct  a  channel  large 
enough  to  carry  the  flood  waters  within  its  banks ;  but  the  minor  floods  will 
be  eliminated  and  the  flood  periods  will  be  considerably  shortened.  At  the 
upper  end  of  the  stream  the  height  of  floods  would  also  be  less ;  but  in  the 
lower  portion  it  would  probably  be  greater.  This  is  the  first  step  and  is  well 
worth  the  cost  if  not  carried  to  extreme  lengths..  The  reader  is  referred  to 
Chapter  XXX  in  this  connection. 

To  entirely  reclaim  the  bottom  land  in  a  valley  of  this  size,  levees  will 
be  required  except  at  the  upper  end  of  the  watershed.  The  larger  hill  streams 
will  also  have  to  be  leveed  or  diverted  around  the  bluffs.  In  some  cases 
pumping  plants  will  be  necessary  and  will  prove  good  investments. 

The  land  is  worth  protecting  and  the  landowners  are  losing  money  every 
year  they  delay  the  construction  of  protection  works. 


CHAPTER  XXV— SKILLET  FORK  WATERSHED 

Skillet  Fork  is  the  outlet  for  the  drainage  from  1,080  square  miles. 
The  watershed  covers  portions  of  Clay,  Marion,  Wayne,  Jefferson,  Hamilton, 
and  White  counties.  Its  length  is  about  60  miles  and  its  extreme  width  25 
miles. 

The  river  has  its  source  in  the  western  part  of  Clay  County  and  flows 
in  a  southerly  and  southeasterly  direction  to  its  confluence  with  Little  Wabash 
River  northeast  of  Carmi.  Its  course  is  very  crooked,  winding  from  side  to 
side  of  its  flood  plain  and  forming  many  loops,  so  that  the  length  of  its 
channel  is  about  two  and  one-half  times  the  air  line  distance  from  source  to 
mouth.  The  valley  varies  in  width  from  a  quarter  of  a  mile  at  the  upper  end 
to  one  and  a  half  miles  at  the  lower  end,  while  near  Mill  Shoals  it  is  about 
six  miles  wide. 

The  valley  has  been  subject  to  overflow  as  far  back  as  the  oldest  settlers 
can  remember.  The  floods  commonly  come  in  the  spring  months,  though 
occasionally  in  the  summer.  It  is  the  latter  floods  that  cause  crop  losses, 
and  their  frequency  has  caused  a  number  of  farmers  to  give  up  farming  in 
the  bottoms.  The  highest  water  in  the  upper  portion  of  the  valley  occurred 
in  March,  1907,  and  in  the  lower  valley  in  1904. 

The  bottom  soil  is  a  gray  silt  loam  and  contains  most  of  the  elements 
needed  for  plant  growth,  but  is  slightly  acid.  It  is  naturally  the  richest  soil 
in  the  watershed,  and  if  its  overflow  could  be  prevented,  would  become  very 
valuable. 

Table  26  gives  the  drainage  data  for  this  watershed.  No  drainage  has 
been  done  above  Wayne  City.  The  upland  needs  drainage,  but  the  soil  does 
not  lend  itself  readily  to  tile  drainage.  The  surface  soil  is  underlain  at  a 
shallow  depth  by  a  tight  clay  subsoil,  which  prevents  the  percolation  of  water 
with  the  result  that  rain  water  stands  on  the  surface  till  it  evaporates.  The 
land  is  rarely  in  good  farming  condition,  since  it  is  usually  either  too  wet  or 
too  dry.  At  the  University  of  Illinois'  agricultural  experiment  farm  at  Fair- 
field, in  Wayne  County,  a  portion  of  the  land  has  been  tiled,  and  it  has  been 
found  that  the  financial  return  from  the  tiled  land  is  very  little  more  than 
that  from  the  untiled  land — in  fact,  not  enough  to  pay  good  interest  on  the 
investment.  As  a  result  of  this  tiling  experiment,  the  landowners  have  been 
told  that  the  land  in  this  neighborhood  can  not  be  successfully  tile-drained. 
Since  the  customary  method  of  tiling  is  not  adapted  to  the  conditions  here 
and  since  the  land  suffers  from  lack  of  drainage,  studies  should  be  made  by 
the  scientific  bureaus  of  the  State  to  determine  a  correct  solution  of  the 
problem. 

The  bottom  land  along  the  river  above  Wayne  City  varies  from  a  quar- 
ter of  a  mile  to  two  miles  in  width,  and  contains  approximately  14,200  acres. 

(189) 


190 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  26. — Drainage  data  for  the  Skillet  Fork  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organised  drainage  districts 


Big  Mound 

Auxier  Creek  Special 
Haw  Creek  Special . . 

Mud  Creek  No.  4 

Fulkerson  No.  1 

Mill  Shoals  No.  3.... 
Lost  Creek 


Total. 


Acres 

Wayne 

9,450 

Wayne-Hamilton 

4,500 

Hamilton- White 

30,000 

White 

1,240 

White 

920 

White 

1,580 

White 

5,000 

52,690 


Drainage  districts  being  organised 

8 
9 

Skillet  Fork  River  Outleta 

Seven  Mile 

Total 

Wayne-Hamilton- 
White 
White 

40,030 
10,000 

50,030 

Overflowed  areas 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 


Skillet  Fork,  upper  end  . . 

Along  Horse  Creek 

Along  Dry  Fork 

Along  Haw  Creek 

Area  in  Delafield  District 
Beaver  Creek  Area , 


Total 


Marion-Wayne 

14,200 

Jefferson- Wayne 

5,560 

Wayne 

4,500 

Jefferson-Hamilton 

7,100 

Hamilton 

5,920 

White 

3,000 

40,280 


aTotal  area  in  district  is  78,680  acres,  but  38,650  acres  are  already  in  other  organized 
districts. 

Along  Horse  Creek  is  an  additional  amount  of  about  5,560  acres,  and  along 
Dry  Fork  about  4,500  acres. 

In  1907  a  cooperative  agreement  was  made  between  the  State  Geological 
Survey,  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey,  the  Internal  Improvement  Commission 
of  Illinois,  and  the  Drainage  Investigations  Office  of  the  Experiment  Station, 
U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  for  a  study  of  the  overflow  situation  along 
Little  Wabash  and  Skillet  Fork  rivers.  Surveys  were  made  in  1907-08  by 
the  agency  last  mentioned  above,  and  plans  and  recommendations  were  pre- 
pared by  them  for  the  reclamation  of  the  overflowed  land.  These  were  pub- 
lished in  1911  by  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission,  which  succeeded  the 
Internal  Improvement  Commission.  The  survey  along  Skillet  Fork  extended 
as  far  north  as  the  mouth  of  Dumms  Creek  which  is  just  above  the  Baltimore 
and  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  in  Marion  County. 


SKILLET    FORK    WATERSHED  191 

In  regard  to  the  portion  of  the  valley  above  the  mouth  of  Dry  Fork, 
the  report  makes  the  following  statement : 

"The  valley  varies  in  width  from  three  miles  at  Dry  Fork  to  one-half 
mile  at  the  upper  end;  the  land  slopes  from  one  and  one-third  to  one  and 
three-quarters  feet  per  mile,  and  the  high-water  grade  line  is  practically 
parallel  to  the  land  surface  and  from  five  to  seven  feet  above  it.  The 
channel  in  the  lower  part  of  this  section,  if  properly  cleared  of  trees  and 
drift  would  be  large  enough  to  carry  the  floods.  Islands  occur  in  the  center 
of  the  channel,  covered  with  willows,  which  materially  affect  the  flow  of  the 
water  in  the  channel." 

For  this  portion  of  the  stream,  channel  improvements  and  cut-offs,  where 
needed,  were  recommended.  The  cost  of  carrying  out  the  proposed  improve- 
ment was  estimated  at  $17.48  per  acre  for  the  14,700  acres  subject  to  overflow 
between  Dry  Fork  and  Brush  Creek,  and  $5.06  an  acre  for  the  5,000  acres 
between  Brush  Creek  and  Dumms  Creek. 

South  of  Wayne  City  several  districts  have  been  formed  in  the  valley. 
The  most  northerly  of  these  is  the  Big  Mound  Drainage  District  which  con- 
tains 9,450  acres  in  the  flood  plain.  No  levees  have  been  constructed  and  the 
area  is  still  subject  to  overflow.  The  existing  ditches  enable  the  land  to  drain 
quickly  after  the  flood  subsides,  but  during  summer  floods  crops  are  lost. 

South  of  the  above  district,  lies  a  large  area  of  overflowed  land  which 
was  the  bed  of  an  old  lake.  The  Haw  Creek  Drainage  District  of  30,000 
acres,  was  organized  in  this  area  in  1889,  and  is  the  oldest  and  largest  dis- 
trict in  the  valley.  It  includes  the  bottom  land  along  Haw,  Lagoon,  and 
Watson's  creeks,  and  extends  about  eleven  miles  from  the  river.  The  gen- 
eral elevation  of  this  tract  is  six  feet  lower  than  the  land  surface  at  the  mouth 
of  the  river,  and  consequently  considerable  difficulty  has  been  experienced  in 
its  drainage.  Twenty-one  miles  of  ditches  have  been  dredged,  which  due  to 
unsatisfactory  outlet  have  silted  up  badly  and  only  about  half  of  the  district 
is  adequately  drained.  The  land  is  overflowed  about  every  other  year.  The 
ground  slopes  away  from  the  banks  of  the  stream  and  successful  drainage 
is  difficult  if  not  impossible  till  a  deeper  and  larger  outlet  is  provided.  A 
large  amount  of  litigation  has  resulted  due  to  unsatisfactory  conditions.  Owing 
to  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  owners  of  the  land  which  was  not  receiving  the 
desired  benefits  from  the  district,  the  commissioners  levied  an  assessment 
for  dredging  a  new  ditch  one  and  a  half  miles  south  of  the  present  outlet 
ditch.  Considerable  objection  to  this  plan  developed  on  the  part  of  those 
who  wanted  to  remedy  the  situation  by  improving  Skillet  Fork  so  as  to  pro- 
vide a  better  outlet,  but  the  court  decided  that  the  new  ditches  should  be 
constructed. 

The  Auxier  Creek  Drainage  District,  which  has  its  outlet  in  the  Haw 
Creek  District's  ditch,  has  had  similar  trouble.  It  was  organized  in  1914 
and  contains  4,500  acres.     Fifteen  miles  of  ditches  represent  the  work  of 


192  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

this  district.  According  to  the  commissioners,  the  value  of  the  land  has 
increased  from  an  original  value  of  $25  an  acre  to  $50  as  a  result  of  drain- 
age. This  indicates  that  the  district  has  not  been  entirely  successful,  else 
the  present  value  of  the  land  would  be  greater.  The  area  was  partially  over- 
flowednr  1916,  1917,  and  1918. 

For  a  distance  of  about  nine  miles  up  the  creek,  the  land  is  in  need  of 
better  drainage.     About  7,100  acres  are  thus  affected. 

Two  other  small  districts  in  Skillet  Fork  valley,  namely,  the  Mud  Creek 
No.  4  and  the  Fulkerson  No.  1  have  1,240  acres  and  920  acres,  respectively. 
Both  have  been  as  successful  as  could  be  expected  under  existing  conditions. 

In  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission's  Report  it  is  recommended  that 
seven  levee  districts  be  organized  between  the  mouth  of  Seven  Mile  Creek 
and  that  of  Dry  Fork,  each  one  to  be  independent  of  the  others  as  far  as 
the  protection  of  its  land  is  concerned.  Some  channel  improvement  was 
also  recommended  as  well  as  some  intercepting  ditches  along  the  foot  of  the 
hills.  The  cost  of  these  districts  was  estimated  at  from  $6.35  to  $24.30  an 
acre,  with  an  average  cost  of  about  $11.08  an  acre.  This  estimate  does  not 
provide  for  pumping  plants  which  were  suggested  for  some  of  the  districts. 
The  improvement  suggested  for  the  lower  stretch  of  the  river  consisted  of 
channel  cleaning  only. 

Since  the  channel  correction  suggested  in  the  above  report  could  not 
be  carried  out  under  the  law  at  that  time,  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  General 
Assembly  in  1917,  providing  for  the  formation  of  the  Skillet  Fork  Drainage 
District,  and  was  passed.  However,  when  the  landowners  attempted  to 
organize  under  this  act,  it  was  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  court  and 
the  petition  for  the  district  was  denied.  The  1919  General  Assembly  re- 
pealed the  act  of  1917;  it  also  amended  the  drainage  law  by  adding  Section 
65a,  providing  for  the  organization  of  outlet  drainage  districts. 

The  landowners  along  Skillet  Fork  then  presented  another  petition  to 
the  Wayne  County  Court  in  April,  1920,  praying  for  the  organization  of 
the  Skillet  Fork  Outlet  Drainage  District  under  the  provisions  of  Section  65a. 
The  court  decided  in  favor  of  the  petitioners,  and  commissioners  were 
appointed  to  make  the  necessary  plans  and  estimates.  Their  report  was 
approved  and  the  district  organized.  The  assessment  roll  is  now  being 
prepared. 

The  plan  proposed  in  the  petition  provided  for  an  entirely  new  channel 
beginning  at  the  Southern  Railroad  bridge  near  Wayne  City,  and  ending  in 
the  present  channel  in  sec.  15,  T.  4  S.,  R.  8  E.,  a  short  distance  below  Beaver 
Creek.  From  this  point  to  the  mouth  of  the  river  the  channel  was  to  be 
cleared  of  all  drift,  trees,  and  other  obstructions.  The  channel  was  to  be 
constructed  in  seven  straight  stretches  connected  by  curves  and  have  a  total 
length  of  about  20  miles.  The  bottom  width  at  the  upper  end  was  to  be  80 
feet  and  at  the  lower  end,  120  feet. 


'  SKILLET   FORK    WATERSHED  193 

The  district  contains  78,680  acres  of  which  38,650  acres  are  in  the 
organized  districts  above  described. 

The  successful  completion  of  the  Skillet  Fork  Outlet  District  will  be  of 
considerable  benefit  not  only  to  the  owners  of  the  bottom  lands,  but  also  to 
the  several  counties  in  which  it  is  located.  While  this  improvement  will  not 
prevent  all  overflows,  it  will  eliminate  the  minor  ones  and  will  materially 
reduce  the  duration  of  the  larger  ones.  It  is  the  first  and  most  essential 
step  in  bottom  land  reclamation.  For  complete  protection  from  overflow, 
the  middle  section  of  the  valley  will  in  all  probability  have  to  be  leveed  as 
recommended  in  the  Rivers  and  Lakes  Commission's  report. 

The  two  other  organized  districts  in  this  watershed  are  not  in  the  imme- 
diate river  valley.  These  are  the  Lost  Creek  District  with  5,000  acres,  and 
the  Mill  Shoals  District  No.  3  with  1,580  acres.  Both  are  giving  satisfactory 
results. 

The  bottom  land  along  Seven  Mile  Creek  is  now  being  formed  into  a 
district  of  that  name.  There  are  10,000  acres  in  the  proposed  tract.  Al- 
though this  area  was  flooded  from  two  to  eight  feet  in  May,  1920,  some 
owners  are  objecting  and  holding  up  the  organization  in  court. 

At  the  upper  end  of  Big  Creek  is  an  area  of  5,920  acres  which  was 
contained  in  the  petition  of  the  Delafield  District  which  was  denied.  A 
second  attempt  will  undoubtedly  be  made  to  organize  this  area. 

Considerable  sentiment  exists  along  Beaver  Creek  for  the  better  drain- 
age of  3,000  acres  of  low  land.  Plans  have  been  made,  but  organization 
has  not  been  effected. 

Other  areas  which  are  feasible  drainage  projects  are  given  in  Table  26 
and  their  locations  indicated  on  the  map. 

A  summation  of  the  drainage  status  in  the  Skillet  Fork  watershed  is  as 
follows : 

1.  Seven  drainage  districts  have  been  organized  with  a  combined  area 
of  52,690  acres,  a  large  part  of  which  is  only  partially  reclaimed. 

2.  Two  districts  are  now  being  formed  which  together  contain  88,680 
acres,  of  which  38,650  acres  are  already  in  organized  districts. 

3.  For  40,280  acres  of  overflowed  land,  representing  30  per  cent  of 
the  area  originally  subject  to  reclamation,  no  provision  has  been  or  is  being 
made. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  new  outlet  district  will  succeed  in  carrying  out 
its  plans,  not  only  for  the  direct  benefit  which  will  result  to  the  landowners 
themselves,  but  also  as  an  example  to  the  other  watersheds  in  this  part  of 
the  State  which  have  large  areas  of  overflowed  lands  which  would  be  greatly 
benefited  by  similar  improvements. 


CHAPTER  XXVI— BIG  MUDDY  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Big  Muddy  River  watershed  contains  2,390  square  miles  lying  in 
Jefferson,  Franklin,  Williamson,  Washington,  Perry,  Jackson,  and  Johnson 
counties.  The  area  is  elliptical  in  shape  with  a  major  axis  of  about  70  miles 
and  a  minor  axis  of  about  50  miles. 

Big  Muddy  River  rises  in  the  northwestern  part  of  Jefferson  County., 
flows  southward  to  the  mouth  of  Plum  Creek,  thence  southwesterly  to  a 
point  about  five  miles  south  of  Murphysboro,  and  thence  southward  to  its 
junction  with  Mississippi  River  about  40  miles  above  Cairo. 

Its  principal  tributaries  are  Middle  Fork,  Pond  Creek,  Little  Muddy 
River,  Crab  Orchard  Creek,  Beaucoup  Creek,  and  Kinkaid  Creek. 

The  channels  of  the  river  and  its  tributaries  are  very  crooked  and  the 
bottom  land  is  frequently  overflowed.  The  valleys  vary  from  a  quarter  of  a 
mile  to  two  miles  in  width  and  a  considerable  portion  of  the  area  is  wet  the 
year  round  and  can  not  be  cultivated.  Much  of  the  bottoms  is  wooded  and 
covered  with  bush.  A  small  portion  is  under  cultivation,  but  crops  are  lost 
more  than  half  the  time.  This  is  a  very  important  coal-producing  area  and 
more  attention  has  been  given  to  the  development  of  the  coal  mines  than  to 
the  use  of  the  surface  for  agricultural  purposes. 

From  the  standpoint  of  drainage,  the  Big  Muddy  watershed  is  the  most 
backward  watershed  in  the  State.  As  indicated  in  Table  27,  138,500  acres 
are  subject  to  overflow  and  not  a  single  drainage  district  has  been  formed 
in  the  entire  area.  In  the  upper  portion  of  the  watershed,  where  most  of 
the  bottom  land  is  situated,  the  majority  of  the  owners  are  adverse  to  any 
improvement,  and  thus  far  nothing  has  been  done.  All  of  the  overflowed 
land  in  Jefferson,  Franklin,  Williamson,  and  Perry  counties  could  be  re- 
claimed very  easily  and  at  a  comparatively  small  cost.  The  opinion  seems 
to  be  general  that  the  lower  Big  Muddy  will  not  provide  an  adequate  outlet 
for  the  waters  from  above.  It  will  require  a  considerable  amount  of  pro- 
motional work  to  create  a  favorable  drainage  sentiment  in  this  valley. 

The  market  value  of  the  bottom  land  is  from  $15  to  $30  an  acre;  while 
if  free  from  overflow  and  drained,  it  would  be  worth  about  $150  an  acre. 

In  1908,  1909,  and  1910,  the  bottom  land  along  the  Big  Muddy  as  far 
north  as  Benton  was  surveyed  and  mapped  by  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey 
in  cooperation  with  the  State  Geological  Survey  and  the  Internal  Improve- 
ment Commission  of  Illinois  with  the  purpose  in  view  of  determining  the 
feasibility  of  constructing  a  navigable  channel  from  the  coal  fields  to  Missis- 
sippi River.  In  1916,  Bulletin  No.  19  was  issued  by  the  Rivers  and  Lakes 
Commission  dealing  with  this  project,  but  no  drainage  studies  have  been  made 
in  this  watershed  by  any  agency. 

From  Sand  Ridge  to  about  the  south  line  of  Franklin  County,  the  river 

(194) 


BIG   MbJDY   RIVER   WATERSHED 


195 


Table  27. — Drainage  data  for  the  Big  Muddy  River  zvatershed 


Beaucoup  Creek  and  Galum  Creek 
Little  Muddy  River 


Big  Muddy. . 

Middle  Fork  and  Ewing  Creek 

Pond  Creek 

East  and  Crab  Orchard  Creeks 

Big  Grassy,  Wolf  and  Crab  Orchard  Creeks. 

Cedar  Creek 

Big  Muddy  (lower  end) 

Kinkaid  Creek 


Total 


Washington-Perry- 
Jackson 

Perry-Franklin- 
Jackson 

Jefferson-Franklin 

Franklin 

Franklin-Williamson 

Williamson 

Williamson-Jackson 

Jackson 

Jackson 

Jackson 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

County 

Area 

Organised  districts 

None . .                                                              

Acres 

Drainage  districts  being  organised 

1 

Crab  Orchard 

Williamson 

3,600 

Overflowed  areas 

24,700 


17,700 

56,700 

14,400 

5,200 

1,500 

7,800 

4,000 

6,000 

500 


138,500 


valley  is  too  narrow  to  warrant  a  reclamation  project.  The  fall  of  the  stream 
is  less  than  half  a  foot  to  the  mile  through  this  portion  of  the  valley,  and 
backwater  from  the  Mississippi  frequently  extends  to  Murphysboro. 

Along  the  river  in  Jefferson  and  Franklin  counties  there  are  56,700  acres 
of  bottom  land,  and  along  Middle  Fork,  Ewing  Creek,  and  Pond  Creek,  an 
additional  19,600  acres.  Most  of  the  Pond  Creek  bottoms  are  cleared  and 
farmed,  but  crops  are  lost  about  half  the  time.  Drainage  sentiment  in  this 
locality  is  good  and  some  improvement  should  result. 

Along  Beaucoup  Creek  and  Little  Muddy  River  there  are  24,700  and 
17,700  acres,  respectively,  of  bottom  land.  The  soil  here  is  a  gray  clay, 
and  whether  or  not  it  would  pay  to  reclaim  it  is  a  question,  as  this  type 
of  soil  is  extremely  difficult  to  farm  and  possibly  should  be  left  as  woodland. 
This  phase  of  the  subject  should  be  given  proper  consideration  in  any  plans 
which  might  be  made  for  this  area. 

The  6,000  acres  of  overflowed  land  at  the  lower  end  of  the  Big  Muddy 
valley  is  considered  very  poor  farm  land.  It  is  largely  owned  by  a  land 
speculating  company,  and  some  ditches  have  been  dug  and  a  good  portion 


196  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

has  been  cleared.  A  number  of  farmers  have  bought  in  this  area  but  have 
been  unable  to  farm  the  gray  and  drab  clay  soil  successfully. 

Plans  are  being  proposed  for  a  district  of  4,000  acres  along  Cedar  Creek. 
Channel  correction  is  all  that  is  needed  here  to  give  complete  protection. 

Along  the  lower  end  of  Kinkaid  Creek  is  a  small  wet  area  of  500  acres 
which  needs  some  attention.  However,  the  area  is  too  small  to  justify  much 
expense. 

In  Williamson  County,  along  Crab  Orchard  Creek,  the  landowners  are 
trying  to  organize  a  district  which  will  reclaim  3,600  acres  of  probably  the 
best  land  in  the  county.  The  undertaking  is  entirely  feasible  from  an  engi- 
neering and  economic  standpoint,  but  there  are  some  objectors  who  are  fight- 
ing the  organization  in  court.  Below  this  area,  7,800  acres  of  bottom  land 
along  Crab  Orchard,  Wolf,  and  Big  Grassy  creeks  are  damaged  by  overflows. 
There  is  considerable  sentiment  near  Makanda  in  favor  of  straightening  the 
creek  which  flows  through  that  village. 

Of  the  138,500  acres  listed  in  Table  27  as  subject  to  overflow,  at  least 
90,000  acres  are  good  farming  land  and  reclamation  should  prove  a  very 
profitable  investment  to  the  owners.  The  value  of  the  remaining  acres  is 
doubtful  and  a  further  study  is  necessary  to  determine  whether  or  not  recla- 
mation can  be  accomplished  profitably. 

The  first  step  in  the  reclamation  of  these  areas  is  the  cleaning  and 
straightening  of  the  channels  to  enable  the  flood  waters  to  run  off  faster. 
This  could  be  done  through  the  formation  of  outlet  drainage  districts  such 
as  are  now  being  formed  along  the  Kaskaskia,  Skillet  Fork,  Sangamon,  and 
other  rivers  and  creeks  throughout  the  State.  The  estimated  cost  of  these 
projects  is  from  $20  to  $30  an  acre. 

After  the  river  is  straightened,  the  larger  areas  should  be  leveed,  and 
in  some  cases  pumping  plants  installed  for  removing  the  water  which  collects 
behind  the  levees  during  flood  periods. 

The  opposition  to  drainage  is  at  bottom  due  to  a  lack  of  informtaion 
on  the  part  of  landowners  as  to  the  engineering  and  economic  aspects  of  the 
subject.  No  one  is  to  be  censured  for  objecting  to  a  proposition  which  he 
does  not  understand.  If  the  methods,  cost,  and  benefits  of  drainage  could 
be  clearly  explained  to  these  men  and  examples  given  of  similar  areas  else- 
where which  have  been  successfully  and  profitably  reclaimed,  a  large  number 
of  the  fair-minded  men  who  are  now  opposed  to  drainage  improvements  would 
change  their  views.  The  reclamation  of  good  farming  land  is  the  best  invest- 
ment a  landowner  can  make.  It  is  also  to  the  interest  of  the  State  to  bring 
these  waste  lands  under  cultivation.  A  little  educational  work  on  the  part  of 
the  State  would  help  considerably  in  accomplishing  this  object. 


CHAPTER  XXVII— SALINE  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Saline  River  watershed  contains  1,230  square  miles  situated  in 
Hamilton,  White,  Saline,  Gallatin,  Franklin,  Williamson,  and  Hardin  coun- 
ties. It  is  roughly  trapezoidal  in  shape  with  the  upper  base  along  the 
Wabash  and  Ohio  rivers. 

Saline  River  is  formed  by  the  confluence  of  South  and  Middle  Forks, 
about  six  miles  southeast  of  Harrisburg.  It  flows  eastward  to  Equality 
where  it  receives  the  waters  of  North  Fork,  and  thence  southeasterly  to  its 
outlet  into  Ohio  River.  The  lower  four  miles  of  Saline  River  form  the 
boundary  line  between  Gallatin  and  Hardin  counties. 

The  drainage  data  for  this  watershed  are  given  in  Table  28,  from  which 
it  is  seen  that  twenty  drainage  districts  with  an  aggregate  area  of  125,920 
acres  have  been  formed ;  and  that  five  districts  are  now  in  process  of  organi- 
zation which  will  add  31,180  acres  to  the  above  total;  also  that  approximately 
64,850  acres  are  overflowed  during  storm  periods.  Most  of  this  is  along  the 
Wabash  and  Ohio  rivers,  and  the  remainder  along  the  middle  and  lower 
portions  of  Saline  River. 

At  least  half  of  the  watershed  is  drained  by  North  Fork  which  has  its 
source  in  Hamilton  County,  and  is  the  outlet  for  two  large  drainage  districts. 
The  first  of  these  is  the  North  Fork  Special  which  was  organized  in  1909, 
and  contains  27,000  acres  of  bottom  land  along  North  Fork  and  Contrary 
Creek.  Above  Broughton  the  land  is  drained  satisfactorily,  but  below  this 
point  about  5,000  acres  are  not  well  drained  because  of  the  choked  conditions 
of  the  river  below  the  district.  This  condition  will  be  largely  overcome  by 
the  new  Cane  Creek  and  Omaha  District  which  is  organizing  to  the  south. 
Before  this  district  was  organized  the  land  brought  about  $20  an  acre ;  its 
present  average  value  is  given  by  the  commissioners  as  $50  an  acre. 

South  and  west  of  the  North  Fork  District  lies  the  Rector  Special, 
which  completed  its  20  miles  of  ditches  in  1912.  It  contains  17,130  acres 
along  Rector  Creek  and  has  its  outlet  in  the  lower  end  of  the  North  Fork 
District.  According  to  the  commissioners  it  has  complete  protection  from 
flood  waters  and  relief  from  rainfall,  but  the  valuation  of  $50  an  acre  placed 
on  the  land  does  not  seem  to  warrant  this  conclusion.  This  district  will 
probably  be  benefited  by  the  Cane  Creek  and  Omaha  District  which  is  now 
organizing  about  9,200  acres  along  North  Fork,  Bear  Creek,  and  Cane  Creek. 
This  will  include  all  of  the  overflowed  land  along  these  streams  with  the 
exception  of  about  3,850  acres  on  the  north  end  of  Bear  Creek  in  White 
County. 

Along  a  tributary  of  Cane  Creek,  5,965  acres  are  incorporated  in  the 
Union  District  No.  2  of  Ridgway  and  Asbury  townships,  which  is  giving 

(197) 


198 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  28. — Drainage  data  for  the  Saline  River  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organised  districts 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 


North  Fork  Special 

Rector  Special 

Union  No.  1,  Ridgeway  and  Asbury. 
Union  No.  2,  Ridgeway  and  Asbury . 

Pond  Settlement 

Cottonwood 

Rock  Branch 

Cypress  Creek 

Smoky  Row 

Cottage  Grove 

Black  Branch 

Black  Land  Special 

Eldorado 

Middle  Fork  Special 

Bankston  Special 

West  Harrisburg 

Pankey  Branch 

Briar  Creek 

Saline  Valley  Special 

Stonefort 


Total 


Hamilton-Saline 

Hamilton-Saline 

Gallatin 

Gallatin 

Gallatin 

Gallatin 

Gallatin 

Gallatin 

Gallatin 

Saline 

Saline 

Saline 

Saline 

Saline 

Saline 

Saline 

Saline 

Saline 

Saline 

Saline 


Acres 

27,000 

17,130 

890 

5,965 

•    2,560 

1,400 

4,120 

11,000 
980 
3,140 
2,670 
5,570 
2,175 

10,980 
8,760 
1,720 
3,500 
3,720 
9,740 
2,900 


125,920 


Drainage  districts  being  organised 


21 

Cane  Creek  and  Omaha 

Gallatin-White 

Gallatin 

Gallatin 

Saline 

Williamson 

9,200 

22 
23 
24 
25 

North  Fork 

Lawler 

Lower  Middle  Fork  Outlet 

South  Fork  Saline  River 

Total 

1,820 

1,880 
10,000 

8,280 

31,180 

Overflowed  areas 


26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 


Along  Bear  Creek 

Area  south  of  Union  No.  2 

Along  Wabash  north  of  Shawneetown . . 
Saline  and  Ohio,  south  of  Shawneetown 
Along  Saline,  South  Fork,  North  Fork. . 

West  of  Stonefort 

West  end  of  South  Fork 


Total 


White-Gallatin 

3,850 

Gallatin 

1,000 

Gallatin 

30,500 

Gallatin-Hardin 

5,700 

Saline-Gallatin 

11,800 

Saline 

1,000 

Williamson 

1,000 

64,850 


satisfactory  drainage.     Union  No.  1  of  the  same  township  is  a  tile  district 
with  no  open  ditches  and  contains  only  890  acres. 


SALINE    RIVER    WATERSHED  199 

Southeast  of  the  No.  2  district  is  an  area  of  1,000  acres  which  needs 
drainage.  The  owners  of  this  land  tried  to  organize  the  Tennessee  District, 
but  the  court  dismissed  the  petition. 

South  of  the  new  Cane  Creek  and  Omaha  District,  the  bottoms  along 
the  North  Fork  are  overflowed  for  a  width  of  half  a  mile  or  more.  A  second 
North  Fork  District  is  being  promoted  south  of  Elba,  containing  1,820  acres 
along  White  Oak  Creek. 

There  is  still  another  small  district  northeast  of  Ridgeway,  namely, 
the  Cottonwood  District  with  1,400  acres  along  the  creek  of  that  name.  It 
has  been  in  existence  a  number  of  years  and  is  operating  successfully. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  most  of  the  bottom  land  in  the  North  Fork  water- 
shed is  either  in  districts  or  is  being  organized  at  the  present  time.  What 
this  area  needs  is  an  outlet  district  to  open  up  the  lower  end  of  North  Fork 
and  at  least  a  portion  of  Saline  River  proper. 

Middle  Fork  of  Saline  River  rises  in  the  hills  of  eastern  Williamson 
County  and  the  northern  part  of  Saline  County  and  drains  the  greater  part 
of  the  latter  county,  emptying  into  Saline  River  about  six  miles  southeast 
of  Harrisburg.  Nine  districts  have  been  formed  in  this  area  and  one  is  now 
being  formed. 

Along  the  upper  end  of  Middle  Fork,  the  Middle  Fork  Special,  com- 
prising 10,980  acres,  was  completed  in  1912.  The  upper  portion  is  success- 
fully drained,  but  the  lower  two  miles  suffer  for  lack  of  a  better  outlet. 
The  commissioners  state  that  the  district  does  not  contain  all  the  land  which 
should  be  included  in  it  and  that  the  lower  end  is  overflowed  by  every  high 
water. 

Along  Bankston  Creek  to  the  south,  the  Bankston  Special  District  was 
organized  in  1910  to  provide  drainage  for  8,760  acres.  It  has  not  accom- 
plished its  purpose  since  it  is  overflowed  annually  due  to  the  choked  condi- 
tion of  its  outlet,  Middle  Fork.  The  land  here  is  valued  at  about  $50  an 
acre.     This  district  also  should  be  enlarged  to  include  some  outlying  lands. 

In  the  western  portion  of  the  city  of  Harrisburg,  about  1,000  acres  were 
organized  in  1910  into  the  West  Harrisburg  Drainage  District.  This  area 
is  used  mostly  for  building  purposes  and  is  seldom  damaged  by  overflows. 

South  of  Harrisburg  two  districts  have  been  formed,  the  Pankey  Branch 
containing  3,500  acres  and  the  Briar  Creek  with  3,720  acres.  The  former 
district  is  a  new  one  and  is  not  completed ;  the  latter  was  organized  in  1910. 

South  of  Eldorado  are  four  districts,  three  of  which  have  their  outlet 
in  Middle  Fork.  First  comes  the  Eldorado  district  with  2,175  acres  ;  next, 
the  Black  Land  Special  which  was  organized  in  1905,  was  the  first  district 
along  Middle  Fork,  and  contains  5,570  acres,  which  the  commissioners  value 
at  $160  an  acre;  and  lastly  is  the  Black  Branch  District,  which  was  formed 
in  1915  and  includes  2,570  acres. 


200  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

The  agricultural  and  industrial  development  of  Saline  County  is  of 
comparatively  recent  date.  The  opening  of  the  coal  fields  in  1902  to  1905 
brought  in  outside  capital  which  provided  the  funds  for  agricultural  improve- 
ments. The  first  district,  organized  in  1905,  was  followed  by  a  second  in 
1909,  and  in  1910  and  1911,  by  seven  more.  They  are  all  at  the  upper  end 
of  the  Middle  Fork  watershed  or  along  the  creeks  which  flow  into  the  river, 
where  reclamation  could  be  accomplished  with  the  least  expenditure.  Each 
district  was  constructed  independently  and  with  no  thought  as  to  the  relation 
of  the  several  undertakings.  The  result  is  a  serious  flooding  of  the  lower 
portion  of  the  Middle  Fork  valley.  The  flood  waters  carry  a  large  amount 
of  silt  and  the  river  channel  and  the  mouth  of  the  ditches  have  become  badly 
choked. 

To  remedy  the  situation,  the  Lower  Middle  Fork  Outlet  Drainage  Dis- 
trict is  now  in  process  of  organization.  It  will  embrace  about  10,000  acres 
and  will  include  portions  of  all  of  the  surrounding  districts.  The  city  of 
Harrisburg  which  is  in  this  area  has  a  very  unsatisfactory  outlet  for  its 
sewage,  and  will  bear  part  of  the  expense  of  the  project.  As  usual,  there 
are  objectors  who  are  opposed  either  to  the  enterprise  as  a  whole  or  to  the 
proposed  distribution  of  the  cost,  and  are  fighting  the  organization.  If  this 
district  is  constructed,  the  existing  districts  and  the  bottom  land  along  Middle 
Fork  will  have  good  outlets  and  should  have  no  further  trouble ;  but  below 
the  mouth  of  the  Middle  Fork,  the  flood  conditions  will  be  worse  than  at 
present.  Between  the  lower  end  of  the  proposed  outlet  district  and  the 
mouth  of  Saline  River  approximately  15,000  acres  are  to  be  classed  as  over- 
flowed bottom  land. 

South  Fork  rises  in  the  hills  of  Johnson  and  Williamson  counties,  and 
follows  very  closely  the  Ozark  uplift  which  forms  the  southern  divide.  The 
run-off  from  the  hills  is  so  very  rapid  that  the  stream  cannot  handle  it  within 
its  banks.  The  result  is  a  flooding  of  the  lowland  for  a  width  of  from  a 
half  to  two  miles. 

Two  districts  have  been  organized  here  and  a  third  is  now  being  formed. 
The  Saline  Valley  Special  includes  9,740  acres  between  Carriers  Mills  and 
Mitchellsville,  and  was  formed  in  1913.  As  the  commissioners  give  its  orig- 
inal value  as  $25  an  acre,  and  its  present  value  as  $40,  the  district  cannot 
have  bettered  conditions  very  much.  The  land  was  overflowed  in  1917  and 
1919.     Lack  of  an  outlet  seems  to  be  the  main  difficulty. 

The  second  district,  the  Stonefort,  is  directly  upstream.  No  definite 
information  was  obtained  as  to  its  success. 

In  Williamson  County  along  South  Fork,  a  district  of  that  name,  con- 
taining 8,280  acres,  was  organized,  commissioners  appointed,  and  surveys 
made;  but  the  assessment  has  not  yet  been  spread  and  the  objectors  are  still 
fighting  the  district  so  that  it  may  yet  be  defeated.     About  1,000  acres  to  the 


SALINE   RIVER    WATERSHED  201 

west  should  be  annexed.  Also  to  the  east  in  Saline  County,  another  1,000 
acres  between  the  new  district  and  the  Stone  fort,  should  probably  be  com- 
bined with  one  of  them. 

South  of  Cottage  Grove  is  located  a  district  of  that  name  comprising 
3,140  acres.  Its  outlet  is  in  Saline  River  east  of  the  mouth  of  Middle  Fork, 
but  it  is  subject  to  overflow  from  both  streams  and  part  of  its  area  is  included 
in  the  new  outlet  district. 

The  Cypress  Creek  Drainage  District  is  northwest  of  the  Shawneetown 
Hills  and  contains  11,000  acres.  Part  of  it  is  flooded  in  periods  of  high 
water,  and  in  1913  the  entire  district  was  inundated.  The  district  crosses 
the  low  divide  between  the  Saline  and  Ohio  rivers.  According  to  one  of  the 
commissioners,  the  ditches  were  improperly  located,  since  some  of  the  land- 
owners refused  to  permit  them  to  be  dredged"  where  they  really  should  have 
been.  Three  bad  cuts  through  quicksand  cannot  be  kept  clean  and  as  a 
result  the  eastern  end  of  the  district  is  not  satisfactorily  drained.  Some 
of  the  owners  here  are  trying  to  withdraw  and  organize  a  new  district  drain- 
ing to  the  east. 

Since  the  above  district  was  formed,  the  Rocky  Branch  District  has  been 
organized  to  the  north  and  uses  lateral  No.  2  of  the  former  district  as  an 
outlet,  which  results  in  the  land  along  this  lateral  being  flooded  after  every 
heavy  rain.  There  is  considerable  friction  between  the  landowners  which 
has  been  detrimental  to  the  district.  The  Rocky  Branch  District  is  not  yet 
completed. 

The  Smoky  Row  District  is  now  under  consideration.  It  is  a  small 
district  of  980  acres,  lying  between  two  ranges  of  hills  just  west  of  Shaw- 
neetown, and  contains  all  the  wet  lands  in  that  locality. 

The  Lawler  Drainage  District  is  in  the  petition  stage.  It  proposes  to 
reclaim  1,880  acres  to  the  west  of  the  Cypress  Creek  District. 

South  and  west  of  Equality  approximately  12,000  acres  are  subject  to 
reclamation.  An  outlet  district  is  needed  here  to  clean  and  straighten  the 
channel. 

The  largest  area  of  overflowed  land  in  this  watershed  is  along  Wabash 
and  Ohio  rivers.  The  width  of  overflow  varies  from  about  four  miles  at 
the  upper  end  to  about  one  and  one-half  miles  at  the  lower  end.  The  tract 
contains  36,000  acres,  approximately,  and  could  be  very  profitably  reclaimed. 
In  the  northern  part  of  this  area,  the  Pond  Settlement  District  has  partially 
reclaimed  2,560  acres.  Levees  have  been  constructed,  but  are  not  of  suffi- 
cient height  to  entirely  protect  the  district  at  high  stages  of  the  river. 

There  are  approximately  2,500  acres  along  Eagle  Creek  in  the  southern 
part  of  Gallatin  County,  which  would  make  a  feasible  drainage  project. 
This  creek  overflows  frequently  from  its  own  water  as  well  as  from  hack- 
water  from  the  Saline. 


202  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

The  drainage  sentiment  in  the  Saline  watershed  is  good.  Of  the  area 
originally  in  need  of  drainage,  64  per  cent  is  either  in  districts  or  is  now 
being  formed  into  districts.  The  main  problem  in  the  area  is  the  straight- 
ening and  dredging  of  Saline  River,  including  North,  Middle,  and  South 
forks,  so  as  to  provide  a  sufficient  outlet  for  the  drainage  ditches.  The 
feeling  among  the  landowners  is  that  the  organization  of  a  district  to  cover 
such  a  large  territory  is  too  much  of  an  undertaking  for  them  to  attempt 
and  that  the  State  should  assist  them  in  providing  the  necessary  outlets. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII— CACHE  RIVER  WATERSHED 

Cache  River  is  the  outlet  for  the  drainage  from  720  square  miles  of 
territory  situated  in  Union,  Johnson,  Alexander,  Pulaski,  Massac,  and  Pope 
counties. 

The  northern  boundary  of  this  watershed  is  formed  by  a  spur  of  the 
Ozark  mountains.  The  natural  drainage  here  is  good  with  the  exception  of 
some  of  the  stream  bottoms  which  are  subject  to  overflow  due  to  their 
crooked  channels  and  to  insufficient  outlets  in  Cache  River.  Along  the  south- 
ern boundary  of  Union  and  Johnson  counties  the  hills  end,  forming  abrupt 
bluffs.  To  the  southward  for  a  distance  of  from  three  to  six  miles,  the  sur- 
face is  practically  level  and  was  originally  covered  with  ponds  and  sloughs, 
and  was  overflowed  for  a  period  of  from  six  to  eight  months  of  the  year. 
To  the  south  is  another  range  of  hills  which  forms  the  divide  between  the 
Cache  and  the  Ohio  rivers.  The  basin  between  these  two  ranges  of  hills  is 
concave  to  the  south  and  extends  from  Bay  City  on  the  east  to  Olive  Branch 
on  the  west,  a  distance  of  approximately  45  miles.  No  doubt  at  one  time  this 
low  area  served  as  a  floodway  for  Ohio  River  at  high  stages,  the  water 
flowing  from  east  to  west  across  the  entire  basin.  Now  however,  there  is  a 
slight  divide  between  the  eastern  and  western  portions  of  the  basin,  Bay 
Creek  draining  the  former  and  Cache  River  the  latter.  The  location  of  this 
divide  has  been  a  matter  of  controversy  between  the  Cache  River  and  the 
I  Jay  Bottoms  districts,  and  a  decision  has  only  recently  been  rendered  by  the 
Supreme  Court  which  in  effect  fixes  the  location  as  shown  on  the  accompany- 
ing map. 

Upper  Cache  River,  Cypress  Creek,  Big  Creek,  and  Mill  Creek  empty 
their  waters  into  the  basin  which  collects  there  as  the  outlet  cannot  carry  off 
the  water  as  fast  as  it  enters.  Many  early  attempts  were  made  by  groups  of 
individuals  to  reclaim  this  area,  but  with  little  success.  The  undertaking  was 
of  such  magnitude  that  the  landowners  felt  that  they  were  unable  to  cope 
with  the  problem,  and  the  State  was  asked  to  assist.  As  a  result,  the  General 
Assembly  in  1903  appropriated  $10,000  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  Cache 
River  surveyed  and  plans  and  estimates  made  for  "straightening  and  dredg- 
ing said  river,  so  as  to  confine  its  waters  within  its  banks  at  all  seasons  of 
the  year  and  thereby  reclaim  said  territory  for  agricultural  and  sanitary  pur- 
poses." Three  commissioners  were  appointed  by  Governor  Yates  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  they  immediately  had  surveys,  plans  and 
estimates  made.  A  report  was  made  in  1905,  containing  recommended  plans. 
However,  no  immediate  action  was  taken.  In  1910  the  Cache  River  Drain- 
age District  was  organized  and  its  commissioners  asked  for  assistance  from 
the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Office  of  Drainage  Investigations,  in 
making  additional  surveys  and  plans.     This  assistance  was  given  and  con- 

(203) 


204 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  29. — Drainage  data  for  the  Cache  River  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 

No. 


Name  of  district 


Area 


Organized  drainage 

districts 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Cache  River 

Belknap 

Vienna 

Big  Creek  No.  2 

Big  Creek  No.  1 

Pulaski 

Pope-Massac-Pulaski- 
Johnson-Union 
Johnson 
Johnson 
Pulaski-Union 
Pulaski-Union 
Pulaski 
Alexander 
Alexander 
Pulaski 

Acres 

81,000 
5,900 
5,500 
6,500 
1,420 
5,100 

7 

Richland 

4,050 

8 

Cairo 

6,440 

9 

Mounds  Drainage  and  Levee 

7,520 

Total 

123,430 

Districts  being  organised 


Upper  Cache  River 

Big  Creek  No.  1,  annexation. 
Wetaug 


Total . 


Union-Johnson 

Johnson 

Union-Alexander 


21,380 
440 

8,500 


30,320 


Overflowed  areas 


13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 


Along  Little  Cache  River 

Along  Dutchman  Creek 

North  of  Upper  Cache  District 

Along  Upper  Cache  River-Bradshaw  Creek . 

Along  Cypress  Creek 

Along  Big  Creek 

Along  Cache  River  (west  end) 


Total. 


Johnson 

Johnson 

Union-Johnson 

Union 

Union 

Union 

Pulaski-Alexander 


500 
1,500 
1,500 
4,000 
2,500 
1,600 
18,200 


29,800 


struction  was  commenced  in  1912.  Cache  River  was  dredged  to  a  point 
about  two  miles  southwest  of  Ullin,  and  the  Foreman  Floodway  and  the 
Post  Creek  Cut-off  were  constructed.  The  Foreman  Floodway  was  a  cut-off 
from  the  C.  &  E.  I.  Railway  crossing  below  Foreman  to  the  original  channel 
at  a  point  about  one  and  a  half  miles  east  of  Karnak.  The  Post  Creek  Cut- 
off was  constructed  from  this  point  south  to  Ohio  River,  and  diverted  a  part 
of  the  flood  water  from  Cache  River.  Five  sub-districts  were  formed  for 
constructing  lateral  ditches  to  the  main  outlet.  Over  $500,000  has  been  ex- 
pended to  the  present  time,  but  still  certain  portions  of  the  district  are  sub- 
ject to  overflow.  The  commissioners  are  now  planning  to  enlarge  the  Fore- 
man Floodway  and  the  Post  Creek  Cut-off,  using  a  60-foot  bottom  width 


CACHE    RIVER   WATERSHED  205 

for  the  former  ditch  and  an  85-foot  bottom  for  the  latter,  except  along  the 
south  1.1  miles  which  is  to  be  70  feet  in  bottom  width,  but  with  natter  side 
slopes.  These  cut-offs  are  intended  to  take  the  flood  water  of  the  upper  end 
of  the  district.  In  making  the  plans  for  these  improvements  the  commis- 
sioners received  engineering  assistance  from  the  State  Division  of  Water- 
ways, Department  of  Public  Works,  and  from  the  Bureau  of  Public  Roads, 
U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture. 

The  Vienna  Drainage  District,  containing  5,500  acres  was  organized  in 
1914  and  completed  in  1917  at  a  cost  of  $25,400.  It  is  not  entirely  success- 
ful due  to  an  unsatisfactory  outlet  into  Upper  Cache  River.  This  district 
embraces  lands  along  Dutchman's  Creek  and  Little  Cache  Creek.  There  are 
1,500  acres  to  the  north  along  the  former  creek  and  500  acres  along  the  latter 
that  should  be  included  in  the  district.  The  organization  of  the  Upper  Cache 
River  Drainage  District,  which  is  now  in  the  petition  stage,  will  be  of  benefit 
to  the  Vienna  District,  and  both  districts  will  be  improved  by  the  construction 
of  better  outlets  by  the  Cache  River  District. 

The  Belknap  Drainage  District  contains  5,900  acres,  adjoins  the  Cache 
River  District  on  the  north,  and  was  constructed  at  a  cost  of  $40,833.  As 
this  district  is  in  the  Cache  River  valley  it  will  be  benefited  by  the  Cache 
River  District  improvement  and  will  probably  join  the  latter  in  carrying  out 
its  plans.  Cypress  Creek  runs  through  the  district.  On  the  upper  end  of 
this  creek  there  are  2,500  acres  of  overflow  land  which  should  be  annexed 
either  to  the  Belknap  District  or  the  Big  Creek  District  No.  2. 

The  Upper  Cache  River  Drainage  District  is  now  in  the  petition  stage. 
Surveys  are  being  made  and  it  will  undoubtedly  be  organized.  About  5,500 
acres  of  overflowed  land  on  the  upper  end  of  this  stream  in  Union  County 
should  be  included  in  the  district,  but  so  far  the  objectors  have  succeeded  in 
keeping  out  this  area.  As  stated  above,  this  district  will  provide  a  better 
outlet  for  the  Vienna  District. 

Big  Creek  Drainage  District  No.  2  lies  in  the  northeast  corner  of  Pulaski 
County  on  the  north  side  of  Cache  River.  This  district  is  in  the  same  situa- 
tion as  the  Cache  River  District  across  the  river.  Big  Creek  District  No.  1 
is  just  west  of  Big  Creek  District  No.  2.  It  is  operating  satisfactorily,  except 
when  Cache  River  overflows.  It  is  now  proposed  to  enlarge  the  district  by 
taking  in  440  acres  to  the  north  in  Union  County.  There  are  1,600  acres 
more  along  Big  Creek  which  should  be  annexed  to  Big  Creek  District  No.  1. 

The  overflowed  area  along  Mill  Creek  is  being  organized  into  the  We- 
taug  Drainage  District.  The  proceedings  are  now  in  court  and  the  organi- 
zation is  being  held  up  by  the  objectors. 

To  the  northeast  and  south  of  Tamms  and  to  the  south  and  southwest 
of  Ullin  there  are  18,200  acres  along  Mill  Creek  and  Cache  River  which  are 
overflowed  and  which  are  not  in  a  drainage  district. 


206  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

The  Richland  Drainage  District  is  situated  just  southeast  of  Olive 
Branch.  It  is  overflowed  by  both  Cache  and  Mississippi  rivers,  and  levees 
should  be  constructed  on  the  south  and  east  sides  and  a  pumping  plant  in- 
stalled to  take  care  of  rainfall  within  the  district  during  flood  stages. 

The  Cairo  Drainage  District  adjoins  the  city  of  Cairo  on  the  north  and 
is  a  levee  district.  It  was  organized  in  1889  and  thus  far  has  cost  $583,707 
but  a  large  amount  of  this  money  has  been  furnished  by  the  Mississippi 
River  Commission.  The  assessment  against  the  land  in  the  district  has  been 
about  $20  an  acre.  The  pumping  capacity  of  this  district  is  inadequate,  and 
in  all  probability  will  soon  be  increased. 

The  Mounds  Drainage  and  Levee  District  is  organized  and  affirmed  by 
the  Court,  but  as  yet  no  assessments  have  been  spread.  There  are  7,520 
acres  in  the  district  and  the  cost  of  construction  is  estimated  at  $255,000. 

The  Pulaski  Drainage  District  was  organized  in  1899  but  has  not  been 
successful.  It  is  planned  now  to  dissolve  the  district  and  to  organize  a  new 
one  to  be  known  as  Boar  Creek  which  will  include  most  of  the  Pulaski 
District. 

Of  the  183,550  acres  of  land  within  this  watershed  which  were  origi- 
nally worthless  and  unproductive,  123,430  acres  or  67  per  cent  have  been 
organized  within  drainage  districts  and  in  whole  or  in  part  reclaimed.  As 
Cache  River  is  the  outlet  for  all  of  the  districts,  the  proposed  improvement 
in  that  stream  and  the  Post  Creek  cut-off  of  the  Cache  River  District  will 
result  in  the  total  reclamation  of  the  area  now  in  organized  districts  as  well 
as  the  30,320  acres  which  are  now  being  organized.  The  remaining  29,800 
acres  will  no  doubt  be  annexed  to  existing  districts  as  soon  as  some  of  these 
districts  are  completely  reclaimed  and  the  advantages  of  thorough  drainage 
demonstrated. 

The  sentiment  for  drainage  is  quite  favorable,  but  the  landowners  have 
been  disappointed  in  the  results  of  their  work  so  far  and  now  are  emphatic 
in  their  demands  that  any  further  construction  must  be  well  planned  and 
adequate  to  give  complete  protection  to  all  the  lands  concerned. 

The  drainage  data  for  this  watershed  are  given  in  Table  29,  from  which 
it  is  seen  that: 

1.  Nine  districts  with  an  aggregate  area  of  123,430  acres  have  been 
organized. 

2.  Three  districts  are  now  being  organized  which,  if  successfully  com- 
pleted, will  add  30,320  acres  to  the  above  total. 

3.  There  are  29,800  acres  of  overflowed  land  outside  of  districts  for 
which  no  provision  is  being  made.  At  a  very  conservative  estimate  there 
are  10,000  acres  within  districts  which  cannot  be  farmed,  making  a  total  of 
39,800  acres  which  remain  to  be  reclaimed.  This  is  25  per  cent  of  the  area 
originally  in  need  of  drainage. 


CHAPTER  XXIX— OHIO  RIVER  WATERSHED 

The  Ohio  River  watershed,  as  considered  in  this  report,  contains  800 
square  miles  and  covers  parts  of  Hardin,  Pope,  Johnson,  Massac,  and  Pul- 
aski counties.  There  are  32,700  acres  of  overflowed  lands  in  this  watershed, 
of  which  23,700  acres  lie  in  the  Ohio  River  bottoms. 

The  topography  of  Hardin  County  is  such  that  drainage  districts  are 
not  necessary,  except  in  two  places  along  Ohio  River.  One  of  these  is 
located  in  the  bend  of  the  river  in  the  southwestern  corner  of  the  county, 
and  the  other  in  the  southeastern  corner.  There  are  about  2,000  acres  in 
the  former  tract  and  1,500  in  the  latter.  The  soil  is  very  fertile,  large  crops 
are  obtained  occasionally,  and  the  land  is  worth  permanent  reclamation. 
Both  of  these  projects  would  require  levees. 

In  the  southern  part  of  Massac  County,  two  contiguous  areas  of  over- 
flowed lands  are  shown  on  the  map.  These  might  be  combined  in  one  levee 
district.  The  two  areas  together  contain  20,200  acres,  and  make  an  excel- 
lent reclamation  project.  Only  a  small  amount  of  this  area  is  being  farmed 
at  present,  due  to  the  wetness  of  the  soil,  and  that  which  is  being  farmed 
produces  a  crop  about  one  out  of  three  years.  There  is  considerable  senti- 
ment in  favor  of  reclamation  in  this  community,  but  the  landowners  feel 
that  the  Federal  Government  should  build  the  levees.  It  is  believed  that 
proper  encouragement  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  or  State  Government  would 
result  in  the  reclamation  of  this  land. 

The  remainder  of  the  river  bottom  land,  which  is  between  Cairo  and 
Mound  City,  is  protected  by  levees. 

Along  upper  Bay  Creek  and  its  tributaries,  Johnson  Creek,  Max  Creek, 
and  Cedar  Creek,  there  are  about  6,000  acres  of  land  which  are  overflowed. 
Only  about  one  out  of  five  crops  are  harvested  from  this  bottom  land.  It 
is  very  rich  soil  and  its  reclamation  would  prove  very  profitable.  The  Upper 
Bay  Creek  District,  embracing  this  area,  was  started  about  three  years  ago, 
but  was  thrown  out  of  court  because  of  the  objections  of  a  few  of  the  older 
landowners,  who  seem  to  be  opposed  to  progress.  The  sentiment  for  the 
organization  of  the  district  was  very  strong,  and  the  petition  was  signed  by 
a  good  majority  of  the  landowners,  and  it  is  not  clear  why  a  few  objectors 
were  able  to  defeat  the  organization  of  the  district.  The  landowners  who 
favor  drainage  are  bitter  against  a  drainage  law  which  in  its  operation 
enables  a  small  minority  to  overrule  the  majority. 

Along  the  lower  end  of  Sugar  Creek,  which  empties  into  Big  Bay  Creek 
west  of  Reevesville,  about  1,000  acres  of  land  is  overflowed,  and  should  be 
annexed  to  Bay  Bottom  District.  Also  along  Flat  Lick  Branch  there  are 
some  2,000  acres  of  such  land,  which  should  be  annexed  to  the  Bay  Bottoms 
District. 

(207) 


208 


LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 


Table  30. — Drainage  data  for  the  Ohio  River  watershed 


Refer- 
ence 
No. 

Name  of  district 

Countv 

Area 

Organised  drainage  districts 

1 

Bay  Bottoms 

Pope 

Acres 
12,100 

Districts  being  organised 

None 

Overflozved  areas 

Southeast  corner  of  Hardin  County . 
Southwest  corner  of  Hardin  County. 

Along  Flat  Lick  Branch 

Along  Sugar  Creek 

Along  Upper  Bay  Creek 

East  of  Brookport 

Southeast  of  Brookport 


Total 


Hardin 

Hardin 

Pope 

Pope 

Johnson-Pope 

Massac 

Massac-Pope 


2,000 
1,500 
2,000 
1,000 
6,000 
2,000 
18,200 


32,700 


Only  one  organized  drainage  district  lies  in  this  watershed,  namely,  Bay 
Bottoms  District,  organized  in  1912  and  containing  12,100  acres.  The 
project  has  not  been  successful  since  only  60  per  cent  of  the  area  is  under 
cultivation.  Also  there  has  been  considerable  litigation  in  this  district. 
Recently  they  lost  an  injunction  suit  against  the  Cache  River  District  to 
prevent  that  district  from  building  a  levee  on  the  west  of  Bay  Creek  to  keep 
the  Bay  Creek  waters  from  flowing  westward  during  flood  periods  into  the 
Cache  River  District.  The  levee  of  the  Cache  River  District  will  make  the 
watershed  line  between  Bay  Creek  and  Cache  River  about  as  shown  on  the 
map. 

The  value  of  the  bottom  land  has  increased  very  rapidly  where  the 
ditches  have  given  relief,  but  the  best  lands  are  still  too  wet  to  cultivate. 

The  northern  part  of  Pope  County  is  very  rugged,  and  the  southern 
part  is  generally  broken  with  low  ridges,  so  there  is  no  need  of  artificial 
drainage  in  the  uplands.  At  the  western  end  of  the  Ohio  River  watershed, 
there  are  two  districts  which  border  on  the  Ohio  River,  but  which  are  mainly 
in  the  Cache  River  watershed  and  are  listed  under  that  watershed. 

Table  30  gives  the  drainage  data  for  this  watershed  from  which  it  is 
seen  that  of  the  44,800  acres  originally  subject  to  overflow,  32,700  acres,  or 
73  per  cent,  remains  in  its  original  condition. 


PART  II— ENGINEERING  PROBLEMS 

BY  G.  W.  PICKELS 

CHAPTER  XXX— CHANNEL  IMPROVEMENT 

The  purpose  of  channel  improvement  is  to  increase  the  discharge  or 
carrying  capacity  of  a  stream  so  as  to  enable  the  water  to  flow  off  faster  and 
thus  decrease  the  height  and  duration  of  floods. 

There  are  only  two  ways  in  which  the  discharge  of  a  stream  can  be 
increased,  viz.:  (1)  by  increasing  the  cross-section  or  size  of  the  channel, 
and  (2)  by  increasing  the  velocity  or  rate  of  flow  of  the  water. 

Increasing  the  Cross-section 

It  is  not  feasible  usually  to  enlarge  the  channel  of  a  stream  so  as  to 
retain  all  the  flood  waters  within  its  banks.  Where  the  stream  is  a  small 
shallow  one,  draining  a  small  watershed,  and  where  the  depth  of  overflow 
is  small,  and  the  period  of  overflow  short,  it  may  be  possible  to  do  this.  In 
this  case,  the  width  of  overflow  would  be  comparatively  small,  and  the  con- 
struction of  levees  to  protect  the  land  would  be  out  of  the  question  from 
the  standpoint  of  cost;  and  since  entire  protection  against  damage  lies  in 
the  capacity  of  the  channel,  a  greater  expense  can  be  incurred  in  channel 
enlargement  than  in  larger  valleys.  However,  in  the  case  of  larger  streams, 
such  as  Kaskaskia,  Embarrass,  Little  Wabash,  and  Skillet  Fork,  it  would 
be  economically  impossible  to  attempt  to  handle  the  flood  waters  in  this 
way.  In  these  valleys,  a  channel  from  1,000  to  1,800  feet  in  width  would 
be  required  to  pass  the  flood  waters  within  the  river  banks.  The  cost  of 
such  enlargement  would  be  much  more  than  the  value  of  all  the  land  re- 
claimed, based  even  on  its  reclaimed  value,  and  consequently  is  not  to  be 
considered.  Protection  from  overflow  along  these  and  similar  streams — 
except  possibly  at  their  upper  ends — cannot  be  secured  by  channel  improve- 
ment alone,  and  such  improvements  must  be  supplemented  by  the  construc- 
tion of  levees.  Hence  the  extent  of  channel  improvement  must  be  given 
careful  consideration,  and  care  must  be  taken  that  the  expenditures  for  such 
purpose  do  not  exceed  the  benefits  to  be  derived  therefrom.  Usually  engi- 
neers place  the  profitable  limit  of  channel  widening  at  from  100  to  125  feet, 
because  of  increased  cost  of  construction. 

Increasing  the  Velocity 

There  are  three  factors  which  affect  the  velocity  of  flowing  water. 
These  are:  (1)  the  slope  of  the  water  surface,  (2)  the  hydraulic  depth,  or 
the  ratio  of  the  area  of  the  cross-section  to  the  wetted  perimeter  (the  bottom 

(209) 


210  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

and  side  slopes  of  the  channel  up  to  the  water  surface),  and  (3)  the  friction 
between  the  flowing  water  and  the  bottom  and  banks  of  the  stream,  techni- 
cally known  as  the  roughness  factor.  These  will  be  discussed  in  reversed 
order. 

FACTORS  AFFECTING  THE  VELOCITY 
ROUGHNESS    FACTOR 

The  magnitude  of  the  effect  of  the  roughness  of  the  bottom  and  side 
slope  of  a  stream  and  of  grass,  weeds,  willows,  etc.,  and  of  tree  trunks, 
stumps,  and  other  debris  upon  the  discharge  of  a  stream  is  not  realized  by 
the  average  person.  In  a  large  stream,  such  as  Illinois  River,  the  width 
and  depth  is  such  that  the  roughness  factor  is  insignificant ;  but  for  smaller 
streams  and  drainage  ditches,  it  is  a  factor  of  considerable  importance.  In 
general,  it  may  be  stated  that  the  discharge  of  such  streams  in  their  natural 
state  can  be  increased  about  one-third  by  the  removal  of  sand  bars  and  other 
deposits  and  debris  from  the  channel,  and  by  the  cutting  of  trees  and  other 
vegetation  along  the  slopes  and  banks.  In  fact  no  greater  return  can  be 
obtained  for  the  amount  expended  by  any  other  form  of  improvement. 

The  roughness  factor  also  includes  the  checking  of  the  flow  of  the 
water  at  sharp  bends  in  the  stream,  and  where  such  bends  can  be  eliminated 
by  short  cut-offs  it  is  usually  profitable  to  construct  them.  The  construction 
of  cut-offs,  however,  introduces  other  elements  which  will  be  considered 
later  in  the  discussion.  It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  broad  bends 
are  not  objectionable  and  streams  should  not  be  straightened  for  this  reason 
alone. 

There  are  a  number  of  small  creeks  in  the  State  along  which  the  over- 
flowed areas  are  small  and  do  not  justify  any  greater  expense  than  that 
occasioned  by  channel  cleaning;  and  frequently  this  would  give  satisfactory 
relief  from  overflow. 

HYDRAULIC   DEPTH 

While  this  is  an  important  factor  at  different  stages  of  a  stream,  yet 
during  flood  periods,  when  the  entire  channel  is  full  of  water,  its  effect  is 
not  so  marked.  The  velocity  is  increased  when  the  hydraulic  depth  is  in- 
creased.   This  can  be  done  either  by  deepening  or  widening  the  channel. 

For  example,  suppose  the  bottom  width  of  a  channel  is  40  feet,  the 
slope  of  the  bank  1  to  1,  and  the  depth  of  flow  12  feet.  If  the  bottom  of 
the  channel  is  lowered  three  feet  by  dredging,  the  slope  remaining  the  same, 
the  bottom  width  would  be  34  feet  and  the  depth  of  flow  15  feet.  This 
deepening  of  the  channel  would  cause  the  water  to  flow  7  per  cent  faster. 

If  the  original  40-foot  channel,  instead  of  being  deepened,  were  widened 
to  60  feet,  the  increase  in  the  velocity  would  amount  to  about  4.5  per  cent. 
Hence  it  is  seen  that  increasing  the  depth  has  a  greater  effect  upon  the 


CHANNEL    IMPROVEMENT  211 

velocity  than  increasing  the  width.  Since  the  outlet  of  a  stream  cannot  be 
lowered,  the  deepening  of  the  channel  upstream  decreases  the  slope  of  the 
stream,  and  the  loss  in  the  velocity  due  to  the  natter  slope  is  usually  greater 
than  the  increase  in  the  velocity  due  to  the  greater  hydraulic  depth.  In 
channel  improvement  it  is  seldom  that  the  bed  of  the  stream  is  lowered 
except  where  depositions  have  formed.  Also  any  widening  of  the  channel 
is  done  to  increase  the  cross-section,  and  thereby  the  discharge,  rather  than 
the  hydraulic  depth.  Hence  it  is  seen  that  this  factor  is  not  of  much  sig- 
nificance in  channel  improvement. 

SLOPE   OF   STREAM 

The  velocity  of  flowing  water  varies  as  the  square  root  of  the  slope. 
For  example,  to  double  the  velocity  it  is  necessary  to  increase  the  slope  four- 
fold. 

Since  the  total  fall  between  any  two  points  on  a  stream  is  constant,  the 
only  way  in  which  the  slope,  or  fall  per  unit  length,  can  be  increased  is  by 
shortening  the  channel  of  the  stream.  As  most  of  the  streams  subject  to 
overflow  wind  back  and  forth  across  their  flood  plains,  they  are  readily 
susceptible  to  shortening.  The  crooked  channels  of  most  of  the  streams 
under  consideration  are  about  twice  as  long  as  the  straight  channels  which 
might  be  constructed.  The  effect  of  this  maximum  straightening  is  to  in- 
crease the  velocity  of  the  water  about  40  per  cent.  The  question  to  be 
decided  is  whether  this  maximum  increase  in  velocity  is  justified  by  the 
cost  of  the  large  amount  of  excavation  necessary  in  constructing  the  channel 
of  maximum  straightness.  In  the  case  of  small  streams,  where  levees  are 
impracticable,  the  answer  to  this  question  may  be  in  the  affirmative ;  but  for 
the  larger  streams,  it  is  usually  decided  in  the  negative. 

Result  of  Channel  Straightening  Due  to  Increased  Velocity 

One  of  the  most  important  engineering  problems  which  arises  in  flood 
protection  work  is  the  amount  of  channel  straightening  which  is  justifiable. 
Where  the  construction  of  a  short  cut-off  will  eliminate  many  times  its  length 
of  old  channel,  and  the  topography  is  favorable,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to 
the  advisability  of  constructing  such  a  cut-off;  but  in  the  many  other  cases 
where  a  comparatively  short  distance  is  saved  by  a  proposed  relocation  of 
channel,  a  decision  can  be  reached  only  after  a  careful  study  of  all  the  factors 
involved.  ,,,•... 

It  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized  that  from  the  standpoint  of 
channel  correction  a  stream  must  be  treated  as  a  unit.  It  is  absolutely  futile 
to  attempt  work  of  this  kind  piecemeal.  No  more  water  can  flow  past  any 
point  in  a  stream  than  can  flow  through  the  most  restricted  portion  of  that 
stream.  The  fundamental  principle  in  all  channel  design  is  to  keep  as  uni- 
form a  velocity  as  possible  throughout  the  system  so  that  any  material  which 


212  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

enters  the  channel  in  suspension  will  be  carried  through  to  the  outlet  and 
not  be  deposited  at  some  point  in  the  channel  to  form  a  bar  that  will  affect 
the  operation  of  the  system.  For  this  reason,  some  agency  other  and  larger 
than  local  organizations  should  have  the  supervision  of  the  planning  and 
carrying  out  of  this  first  step  in  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom  lands  subject 
to  overflow. 

For  the  purpose  of  discussion,  let  us  assume  that  by  the  maximum 
straightening  of  a  stream,  the  velocity  of  the  flowing  water  is  doubled,  due 
to  the  increased  slope,  the  greater  hydraulic  depth  of  the  new  channel,  and 
the  decrease  in  the  roughness  factor.  This  value  is  admitted  high,  but  is 
chosen  because  even  numbers  are  easier  to  deal  with  than  fractions.  Also 
let  us  assume  that  the  length  of  the  new  channel  is  just  one-half  that  of  the 
old  channel.  Overlooking  the  fact  that  the  construction  of  such  a  channel 
might  not  be  justified  on  economic  grounds,  let  us  discuss  its  desirability. 

The  flooding  of  the  bottom  land  is  caused  by  the  fact  that  the  water 
enters  the  valley  faster  than  the  channel  can  discharge  it.  A  flood  period 
can  be  divided  into  three  stages.  The  first  stage  is  that  from  the  beginning 
of  the  storm  till  the  stream  overflows  its  banks ;  the  second  stage  is  from 
this  point  until  the  crest  of  the  flood  is  reached;  and  the  third  stage  is  the 
period  during  which  the  flood  waters  are  receding  until  the  stream  is  again 
within  its  banks. 

Let  us  consider  the  effect  of  channel  improvement — based  on  the  above 
assumption — upon  these  three  stages.  Since  the  velocity  of  the  water  in  the 
new  channel  is  twice  that  in  the  old,  the  former  discharge  at  the  bankful 
stage  will  now  be  carried  at  approximately  one-half  the  bankful  stage,  and 
it  will  take  a  more  severe  storm  or  one  of  longer  duration  to  cause  the  stream 
to  overflow.  Former  minor  floodings  of  the  bottoms  would  be  eliminated, 
so  the  effect  of  the  impovement  would  be  to  increase  the  length  of  the  first 
stage. 

During  the  second  stage,  since  the  water  is  carried  away  twice  as  fast 
by  the  new  channel,  the  rate  of  increase  of  the  depth  of  overflow  would  be 
decreased,  the  high  water  mark  of  the  flood  would  be  lowered,  and  the  crest 
of  the  flood  would  be  reached  in  a  shorter  period  than  formerly. 

The  duration  of  the  third  stage  would  be  decreased,  since  the  channel 
is  discharging  its  water  twice  as  fast  as  it  did  through  the  unimproved  channel. 

So  it  would  seem  from  the  above  reasoning,  that  the  improvement  would 
be  beneficial  at  all  stages  of  a  flood.  However,  there  is  a  fallacy  in  the 
premises  upon  which  the  foregoing  conclusions  are  based,  namely,  that  the 
same  volume  of  water  is  present  at  all  points  in  the  valley  as  was  the  case 
before  the  channel  was  improved.  It  is  true  that  the  water  enters  the  valley 
from  the  nearby  hills  and  through  the  tributaries  in  the  same  quantities  and 
at  the  same  rate  as  before,  but  the  distribution  of  the  water  in  the  valley  is 
entirely  different,  there  being  a  smaller  volume  at  the  upper  end  of  the  valley 


CHANNEL    IMPROVEMENT  213 

and  a  larger  volume  at  the  lower  end.  It  is  only  at  the  upper  end  of  the 
watershed  that  the  above  conclusions  are  even  approximately  correct,  and 
proceeding  downstream  the  error  becomes  increasingly  greater.  For  while 
it  is  true  that  the  new  channel  at  a  given  point  can  discharge  twice  as  much 
water  in  a  given  time,  it  is  also  true  that  twice  as  much  water  is  being 
brought  to  this  point  from  the  valley  above  as  formerly;  and  hence  the 
channel  is  taxed  to  its  full  capacity,  just  as  it  was  formerly,  and  has  no 
excess  capacity  for  handling  within  its  banks  the  water  which  enters  the 
valley  from  the  nearby  tributaries.  The  result  would  be  just  as  serious  a 
flooding  of  the  middle  and  lower  reaches  of  the  valley  as  before,  though  the 
period  of  flooding  would  be  shortened.  If  this  period  can  be  shortened  so 
as  to  prevent  damage  to  crops,  the  improvement  is  beneficial ;  if  not,  little  is 
gained  thereby. 

Effect  of  Shortening   Channel 

Thus  far  only  the  effect  of  the  increased  velocity  has  been  considered. 
There  remains  a  still  more  important  factor,  and  that  is  the  effect  of  the 
decrease  in  the  distance  which  the  water  has  to  travel  in  passing  through 
the  valley. 

In  order  that  this  effect  may  be  better  understood,  let  us  consider  two 
watersheds  of  the  same  size  and  with  the  same  rainfall  and  run-off,  but  of 
different  shapes.  The  first  watershed  is  fan-shaped  with  all  the  tributaries 
entering  the  main  stream  at  approximately  the  same  point.  The  second 
watershed  is  long  and  narrow,  the  tributaries  entering  the  main  stream  at 
different  points  throughout  the  valley.  If  both  watersheds  are  subjected  to 
storms  of  equal  intensity,  the  first  watershed  will  suffer  more  from  flooding 
than  the  second,  due  to  the  fact  that  in  the  first  watershed  the  flood  crest  of 
the  several  tributaries  will  reach  the  main  stream  at  about  the  same  time, 
and  the  result  of  the  concentrated  flow  will  be  the  flooding  of  the  main  valley ; 
whereas,  in  the  second  watershed,  the  water  from  each  tributary  will  reach 
the  main  stream  and  flow  off  before  the  water  from  the  tributary  above  has 
time  to  reach  the  tributary  below ;  and  there  will  be  no  concentration  of  the 
flood  crests  of  the  several  tributaries  except  in  floods  of  long  duration.  Thus 
it  is  seen  that  fan-shaped  watersheds,  or  watersheds  where  the  distances 
between  the  mouths  of  the  tributaries  are  short,  are  subject  to  more  fre- 
quent flooding  than  long  narrow  watersheds,  where  the  distances  between 
tributaries  are  greater. 

The  above  illustration  applies  to  the  case  under  discussion.  The 
straightening  of  an  old  channel  brings  the  tributaries  closer  to  each  other  so 
far  as  the  time  required  for  the  water  to  travel  between  them  is  concerned. 
In  the  assumed  problem,  the  length  of  the  old  channel  has  been  halved,  and 
the  velocity  of  the  water  doubled,  so  that  water  from  any  point  in  the  valley 
will  reach  any  other  point  in  just  one- fourth  the  time  it  formerly  required. 


214  LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

The  water  entering  the  new  channel  at  the  upper  end  of  the  valley  will  reach 
the  lower  end  of  the  valley  in  just  one-fourth  the  former  time;  since  the 
water  is  being  discharged  from  the  lower  end  of  the  valley  only  twice  as  fast 
as  under  the  old  conditions,  the  result  must  be  a  piling  up  of  the  water  at 
the  lower  end  and  a  more  serious  flood  condition.  There  will  be  less  water 
at  the  upper  end  of  the  valley  and  more  water  at  the  lower  end.  This  is  a 
phase  of  stream  straightening  which  has  not  been  given  sufficient  considera- 
tion. 

General  Discussion 

In  the  foregoing  discussion,  a  free  outlet  at  the  end  of  the  valley  was 
assumed.  This  is  a  condition  which  does  not  exist  if  the  outlet  stream  is 
also  at  flood  stage  which  is  usually  the  case  during  the  more  severe  storms. 
The  high  stage  in  the  outlet  stream  decreases  the  slope  at  the  lower  end  of 
the  stream  under  consideration  and  the  water  will  not  leave  the  valley  at 
twice  its  former  rate. 

Another  factor  to  consider  is  the  more  rapid  filling  up  of  the  channel 
at  the  lower  end  due  to  the  larger  amount  of  material  which  will  be  eroded 
and  carried  in  suspension  because  of  the  increased  velocity  of  the  flowing 
water.  This  material  will  be  deposited  as  the  velocity  is  checked  due  to  the 
backwater  at  the  lower  end. 

In  the  case  of  the  smaller  valleys  it  may  be  possible  to  enlarge  the 
channel  sufficiently  at  successive  points  downstream  to  remedy  the  undesir- 
able conditions  mentioned ;  but  for  the  larger  valleys  this  is  not  feasible. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  subject  of  stream  straightening  is  very  impor- 
tant, and  consequently  one  which  should  not  be  decided  until  all  the  factors 
affecting  it  are  known  and  intelligently  considered.  Each  valley  is  a  separate 
problem;  for  while  the  rainfall  and  run-off  factors  of  neighboring  valleys 
may  be  very  similar,  the  times  of  concentration  of  the  flood  waters  are  cer- 
tain to  be  quite  different.  Not  only  the  valley  of  the  main  stream  but  also 
each  tributary  watershed  must  be  studied. 

It  must  not  be  inferred  from  this  discussion  that  streams  should  not  be 
straightened  at  all,  for  they  should  be.  The  question  is  one  of  extent. 
Every  proposed  cut-off  should  be  considered  on  economic  grounds  and  on 
the  effect  which  it  will  have  upon  the  valley  as  a  whole. 

If  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom  lands  rests  upon  the  cooperation  of 
individual  landowners  to  make  the  investigation  and  studies  necessary  for 
an  intelligent  solution  of  the  channel  straightening  problem,  the  lands  will 
never  be  reclaimed,  unless  it  be  in  a  piecemeal  fashion,  each  locality  pro- 
tecting itself  without  a  thought  as  to  the  effect  of  its  work  upon  the  lands 
above  and  below.  Too  much  of  this  has  been  done  already,  and  should  not 
be  permitted  to  continue.  It  would  seem  that  the  work  of  scientific  inves- 
tigation and  the  making  of  plans  and  recommendations  might  very  properly 
be  a  function  of  the  State.     There  are  those  who  think  that  the  State  should 


CHANNEL    IMPROVEMENT  215 

also  give  financial  assistance  in  straightening  the  crooked  channels ;  but  upon 
this  point  the  writer  is  not  prepared  to  give  an  opinion.  However,  since  the 
State  will  profit  largely  through  increased  revenue,  it  certainly  should  be 
concerned  with  the  reclamation  of  the  waste  bottom  land,  and  should  do  its 
share  in  thus  developing  the  natural  wealth  which  lies  in  the  fertile  bottom 
land  soils. 


CHAPTER  XXXI— LEVEES 

Levees  are  small  earthen  dams  placed  at  varying  distances  from  the 
banks  of  a  stream  to  serve  as  artificial  banks  during  flood  periods  when  the 
stream  gets  out  of  its  natural  banks,  and  to  protect  the  major  portion  of  the 
bottom  land  from  overflow. 

Levees  are  justified  and  should  be  constructed  in  any  valley  where  the 
interest  on  their  first  cost  and  annual  maintenance  is  less  than  the  net  annual 
increase  in  the  returns  from  the  land  which  is  protected  by  them. 

The  construction  of  levees  is  the  second  step  in  the  reclamation  of  the 
bottom  lands,  the  first  being  the  cleaning  and  straightening  of  the  channel  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  discussed  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Where 
the  valley  is  narrow,  levees  may  take  the  form  of  carefully  constructed  spoil 
banks  made  from  the  material  excavated  from  the  channel  during  the  process 
of  channel  improvement,  and  additional  protection  may  be  secured  in  this 
way  with  little  additional  expense. 

Design  of  Levees 
The  factors  entering  into  the  design  of  levees  are : 

1.  The  crown  or  top  width, 

2.  The  slope  of  the  sides, 

3.  The  height,  and 

4.  The  free  board,  or  height  of  levee  above  that  is  necessary  to  carry 
the  waters  of  the  greatest  known  flood  in  the  past.  This  acts  as  a  factor 
of  safety  against  still  greater  floods,  and  allows  for  any  errors  in  the  design 
of  the  levee  system  due  to  insufficient  data  on  past  floods. 

CROWN 

The  crown  of  a  levee  should  be  from  three  to  eight  feet  in  width,  de- 
pending upon  the  strain  to  which  the  levee  is  to  be  subjected  and  upon  the 
amount  of  freeboard  which  is  allowed.  Along  the  larger  streams,  the  flood 
waters  stand  for  weeks  against  the  levees,  and  should  they  become  saturated 
there  is  danger  of  the  upper  portion  sliding  upon  the  plane  of  saturation, 
resulting  in  a  crevasse.  Also  along  such  streams,  the  levees  are  subjected 
to  the  eroding  effect  of  waves.  Under  these  conditions  the  maximum  crown 
should  be  used.  However,  for  the  majority  of  the  streams  within  the  State, 
the  flood  waters  do  not  remain  long  at  a  high  stage,  and  the  three-foot  crown 
is  sufficient,  if  ample  free-board  is  allowed  for  in  the  design. 

SIDE  SLOI'ES 

The  slope  of  a  levee  on  the  river  side  should  ordinarily  be  3  to  1,  that 
is,  three  feet  horizontally  to  one  foot  vertically.  If  the  material  available 
for  the  levee  is  largely  clay,  a  2.5  to  1  slope  is  permissible  for  the  smaller 

216 


217 


streams.  This  is  the  minimum  which  should  be  used.  The  slope  on  the 
land  side  may  be  steeper.  If  a  3  to  1  ratio  is  used  for  the  slope  toward  the 
river,  2  to  1  may  be  used  on  the  land  side.  The  sum  of  the  two  slopes 
should  be  not  less  than  5  to  1. 

HEIGHT 

The  height  of  a  levee  depends  upon  the  cross-sectional  area  necessary 
to  pass  the  maximum  flood  discharge,  the  distance  between  the  levees,  which 
confine  the  flood  waters,  and  the  elevation  of  the  ground  upon  which  the 
levee  is  to  be  built.  Obviously  this  is  a  very  important  element  in  levee 
design;  for  if  the  levee  is  too  low  the  land  behind  it  will  be  flooded,  while 
if  it  is  higher  than  necessary,  money  is  wasted  in  its  construction.  The 
economic  height  of  levee  involves  a  careful  engineering  study,  taking  into 
consideration  the  many  factors  which  affect  it.  This  will  be  discussed  more 
fully  later. 

FREEBOARD 

It  is  customary  to  provide  a  margin  of  safety  by  making  the  top  of  the 
levee  higher  than  the  highest  high  water  mark  of  any  known  flood  in  the 
past,  allowance  being  made  for  the  fact  that  when  confined  within  levees 
the  crest  of  such  a  flood  would  be  higher  than  when  the  entire  valley  was 
available  as  a  flood-way.  This  additional  height  is  known  as  freeboard,  and 
is  usually  taken  as  from  two  to  four  feet. 

Cost  of  Levees 
For  the  sake  of  comparison  it  is  thought  desirable  to  give  the  cost  of 
levees  of  various  heights.  Since  for  the  average  stream  within  the  State  a 
levee  with  a  crown  of  three  feet  and  combined  side  slopes  of  5  to  1  is  most 
applicable,  these  values  have  been  used  in  computing  the  volumes  and  costs 
given  in  the  following  table : 


Table  31. — Cost  data  for  one  mile  of  levees  of  different  heights,  using  crozvn  of 
3  feet  and  combined  side  slopes  of  5  to  J 


Height 

Volume 

Cost 

Increase     in     cost 

Ft. 

Cu.  Yds. 

At  20  cts  per  yd. 

Per  foot 

6 

21,120 

■$  4,224 

7 

28,062 

5,612 

$1,388 

8 

35,982 

7,196 

1,584 

9 

44,880 

8,976 

1,780 

10 

54,755 

10,951 

1,975 

11 

65,610 

13,122 

2,171 

12 

77,440 

15,488 

2,366 

13 

90,250 

18,050 

2,562 

14 

104,036 

20,807 

2,757 

15 

118,800 

23,760 

2,953 

218  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  difference  in  the  cost  per  mile  of  a  6-foot  and 
a  7-foot  levee  is  $1,388;  while  that  between  a  13-foot  and  a  14-foot  one  is 
$2,757,  or  twice  the  former  amount. 

Discharge 

During  flood  periods,  the  bottom  land  of  a  river  valley  is  overflowed 
because  the  flood  water  is  brought  to  the  valley  by  the  tributary  streams 
faster  than  it  can  be  carried  away  by  the  river  channel.  Thus  the  flood 
plain  becomes  a  temporary  reservoir  for  storing  the  surplus  water  until 
such  time  as  the  channel  can  carry  it  away. 

When  the  waters  are  confined  by  levees  on  each  side  of  the  river,  the 
artificial  reservoir  thus  formed  is  much  narrower  than  the  natural  one — 
probably  only  one-tenth  as  wide.  Since  approximately  the  same  volume 
of  water  must  be  stored — ignoring  the  increase  in  velocity  due  to  greater 
depth  of  flow — the  crest  of  a  flood  will  reach  a  greater  height  than  formerly. 
Just  how  high  and  how  far  apart  the  levees  will  have  to  be  depends  entirely 
upon  the  volume  of  water  to  be  carried  between  them. 

The  determination  of  this  volume  is  by  far  the  most  important  engineer- 
ing problem  which  enters  into  the  successful  leveeing  of  a  stream.  The 
factors  involved  are:  (1)  the  length  and  intensity  of  storms;  (2)  the  shape 
of  the  watershed,  whether  long  and  narrow  with  short  tributaries  entering  at 
distributed  points  throughout  the  valley,  or  short  and  wide  with  long  tribu- 
taries entering  the  main  valley  at  points  close  together;  (3)  the  topography 
of  the  watershed,  whether  flat  or  steep ;  (4)  the  soil  of  the  watershed,  whether 
a  pervious  loam  or  sand,  or  an  impervious  clay  or  rocky  soil;  and  (5)  the 
slope  and  general  character  of  the  main  channel,  that  is,  whether  it  is  fairly 
straight  and  clean  or  crooked  and  full  of  bars,  drift,  etc. 

Even  with  the  above  information,  it  is  difficult  to  form  anything  more 
than  a  general  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  probable  maximum  discharge. 

The  only  satisfactory  method  of  determining  the  discharge  is  to  measure 
it.  This  is  done  by  establishing  gaging  stations  at  a  number  of  suitable  points 
in  the  valley  and  measuring  the  velocity  of  the  flowing  water  at  various 
stages  of  the  stream,  preferably  by  means  of  a  current  meter.  In  order  to 
secure  measurements  at  the  higher  stages,  observations  during  a  number  of 
years  are  necessary.  However,  when  several  landowners  decide  to  organize 
a  levee  district,  they  do  not  want  to  wait  until  such  measurements  can 
be  made,  neither  do  they  care  to  go  to  the  expense  of  establishing  gaging 
stations  for  that  purpose.  Since  eventually  all  of  the  larger  valleys  will  be 
leveed,  if  discharge  measurements  were  started  now  on  all  such  streams,  the 
desired  information  would  probably  be  available  by  the  time  it  is  needed. 
Naturally,  this  work  of  scientific  investigation  should  be  carried  on  by 
federal  or  state  agencies.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  such  is  now  the  case  on  a 
small  scale.    The  U.  S.  Geological  Survey  has  established  about  twenty  such 


LEVEES  219 

stations  in  the  State,  and  the  results  thus  far  obtained  have  been  of  con- 
siderable value.1  However,  many  more, are  needed.  In  addition,  there  are 
many  staff  gages  installed  on  highway  and  railroad  bridges  along  most  of  the 
streams,  and  the  highwater  elevations  of  extreme  floods  are  matters  of 
record.  These  are  very  helpful,  and  in  conjunction  with  certain  field 
measurements  made  later,  a  fair  determination  of  the  discharge  during 
floods  can  be  obtained. 

It  is  not  the  intention  to  discuss  here  the  engineering  details  connected 
with  stream  discharge  measurements.  It  is  simply  desired  to  call  attention 
to  the  importance  of  the  matter,  and  the  need  for  scientific  investigation  of 
run-off  in  the  valleys  of  the  State. 

Spacing  and  Height  of  Levees 

Having  determined  the  discharge  of  a  stream  during  severe  floods,  and 
the  cross-sectional  area  of  flood-way  necessary  to  carry  it,  the  next  question 
is  what  shape  of  cross-section  is  most  economical ;  that  is,  shall  the  levees 
be  placed  close  to  the  banks  of  the  stream  and  be  comparatively  high,  or  shall 
they  be  placed  farther  from  the  banks  and  of  a  lower  height.  This  is 
purely  a  question  of  economics.  The  closer  the  levees,  the  greater  will  be 
the  area  of  farming  land  reclaimed,  but  the  cost  of  the  levees  will  also  be 
greater.  It  is  simply  a  matter  of  balancing  one  against  the  other  and  of 
finding  that  location  at  which  the  annual  net  returns  from  a  narrow  strip  of 
reclaimed  land  is  the  same  as  the  interest  on  the  additional  cost  of  the 
higher  levee  required  to  reclaim  the  strip.  Local  conditions  would  of  course 
modify  the  general  procedure  somewhat. 

In  designing  levees  at  the  lower  end  of  a  valley  in  which  the  channel 
has  been  or  is  to  be  straightened,  it  must  be  remembered,  as  pointed  out  in 
the  preceding  chapter,  that  during  severe  storms  the  flood  heights  will  be 
greater  than  before  the  channel  was  improved,  and  the  levees  must  be  either 
higher  or  farther  apart. 

Construction  of  Levees 

Since  a  levee  is  subjected  to  the  percolating  effect  of  water  and  to  the 
eroding  action  of  the  current  and  waves  during  floods,  it  should  be  con- 
structed of  the  most  impervious  material  at  hand  and  should  be  made  as 
compact  and  solid  as  possible. 

The  best  material  for  this  purpose  is  clay  and  the  poorest  is  sand  and 
gravel.  There  is  usually  not  much  choice,  since  the  material  adjacent  to  the 
levee  must  be  used  in  its  construction.  However,  generally  the  top  soil  is 
more  porous  than  the  subsoil  and  should  not  be  used. 

Levees  fail  either  by  being  overtopped  by  the  flood  waters  or  by  sliding 


!The  U.  S.  Geological  Survey  publishes  these  results  in  its  Water  Supply  Papers  annu- 
ally.   A  complete  list  of  the  bulletins  is  to  be  found  in  their  list  of  publications. 


220  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

along  the  foundation  plane.  The  former  danger  is  eliminated  by  a  correct 
design ;  the  latter  by  using  care  during  construction.  To  prevent  the  water 
from  percolating  through  the  more  porous  original  top  soil,  either  this  soil 
should  be  removed  down  to  the  more  compact  sub-soil,  or  a  cut-off  wall 
should  be  constructed.  The  latter  is  done  by  excavating  a  trench  a  little 
forward  of  the  center  of  the  levee,  making  it  from  four  to  eight  feet  wide 
and  of  about  the  same  depth,  and  filling  it  with  the  most  impervious  ma- 
terial at  hand. 

Before  the  levee  is  started  all  stumps  and  decaying  vegetable  matter 
should  be  removed  and  furrows  plowed  in  the  foundation  parallel  to  the 
axis  of  the  levee.  This  provides  a  better  bond  between  the  levee  and  the 
foundation  and  is  additional  insurance  against  sliding. 

No  logs,  vegetable  matter  or  other  substances  which  will  decay  and  leave 
openings  in  the  levee  should  be  permitted  in  its  construction.  If,  due  to 
methods  of  construction  or  to  the  nature  of  the  material  used  or  to  the 
character  of  the  foundation,  any  settlement  of  the  levee  is  likely  to  occur,  its 
top  should  be  made  slightly  higher  than  the  desired  elevation  to  allow  for 
any  such  settlement. 

When  a  levee  is  constructed  by  a  dipper  or  a  grapple  dredge,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  obtain  a  smooth  crown,  and  usually  the  top  of  such  a  levee  has  the 
appearance  of  a  miniature  mountain  range,  and  unless  care  is  taken  some 
points  will  be  below  the  required  elevation.  A  levee  of  this  kind  should  be 
gone  over  with  a  team  and  scraper  and  leveled  off  and  then  the  elevation 
of   the  top  checked. 

When  a  drag  line  machine  is  used,  a  much  more  uniform  levee  section 
and  one  of  better  appearance  is  secured,  but  not  necessarily  a  better  or 
stronger  levee. 

The  material  for  the  levee  should  be  taken  from  the  river  side,  and 
the  edge  of  the  borrow  pit  from  which  it  is  excavated  should  not  be 
closer  than  40  feet  to  the  bottom  of  the  levee.  This  is  especially  important 
in  the  case  of  high  levees.  Borrow  pits  should  be  constructed  so  that  the 
water  can  run  out  during  normal  stages  of  the  river. 

Maintenance  of  Levees 

As  soon  as  possible  after  a  levee  is  constructed,  its  surface  should  be 
sowed  with  some  grass  which  will  not  form  too  rank  a  growth,  but  whose 
roots  will  form  a  tough  sod.  Different  soils  require  different  grasses  or  a 
combination  of  several  kinds.  For  clay  soils,  a  mixture  of  Kentucky  blue 
grass,  English  rye,  and  red  top  is  suitable,  the  latter  two  protecting  the 
former  which  forms  the  permanent  covering ;  for  sandy  soils  a  quickly  grow- 
ing binding  grass  which  will  grow  with  little  moisture  is  necessary.  Creeping 
bent  and  fine  leaved  fescue  fulfills  this  requirement.  This  is  the  best  pos- 
sible protection  against  erosion  and  wave  action  and  will  give  the  desired 


LEVEES  221 

result  except  in  specially  bad  places  along  large  streams  like  the  Mississippi 
and  Illinois.  If  the  slopes  of  the  levee  are  smooth,  the  grass  can  be  mowed 
by  machine.  A  screen  of  willows  between  the  river  and  the  levee  is  fre- 
quently desirable  to  prevent  erosion  due  to  current  and  wave  action.  The 
remainder  of  the  flood-way  should  be  kept  cleared,  so  as  not  to  retard  the 
flood  waters.  Levees  should  be  carefully  inspected  at  least  twice  a  year, 
especially  at  first,  to  discover  weak  spots  which  may  have  developed. 
Where  roads  cross  a  levee  it  is  liable  to  become  lower  at  those  points  and  if 
for  any  reason  the  grade  of  the  levee  is  not  maintained,  excess  material 
should  be  provided  nearby  for  use  in  emergency. 


CHAPTER  XXXII— DIVERSION  DITCHES 

A  diversion  ditch  is  one  constructed  to  intercept  the  water  which  would 
otherwise  flow  into  a  district  from  the  lands  outside,  and  to  carry  it  around 
the  district  to  the  outlet  stream  below. 

All  districts  located  in  river  valleys  are  troubled  more  or  less  with  the 
water  which  naturally  runs  into  them  from  the  higher  land  outside  their 
boundaries.  This  problem  has  confronted  most  of  the  districts  along  the 
Illinois  and  Mississippi  rivers,  and  will  have  to  be  met  by  future  districts 
along  the  smaller  streams  within  the  State. 

In  some  levee  districts  it  may  be  possible  to  operate  satisfactorily  with- 
out pumping  plants,  if  the  hill  water  can  be  kept  out.  In  such  cases  di- 
version ditches  should  by  all  means  be  constructed. 

Districts  which  maintain  levees  are  especially  troubled  with  the  hill 
-water  problem.  Many  such  districts  along  the  Mississippi  have  protection 
from  the  flood  waters  of  the  river  but  are  subject  to  a  "rear  attack"  by  the 
hill  water,  which  collects  in  the  old  lakes  and  sloughs  behind  the  levees. 
In  Chapter  II  on  the  Mississippi  watershed,  many  districts  are  described 
which  have  been  only  partially  successful  due  to  this  difficulty. 

In  some  instances  the  hill  water  enters  the  valley  through  one  stream 
which  follows  a  winding  course  across  the  flood  plain  to  the  river.  If  the 
volume  of  water  is  not  too  great,  the  main  ditch  of  the  district  may  tap  the 
stream  at  the  bluffs  and  be  made  large  enough  to  handle  its  waters  as  well 
as  that  of  the  land  in  the  district.  If  the  cost  of  the  extra  excavation  re- 
quired by  this  plan  is  greater  than  the  cost  of  a  diversion  channel  from  the 
bluffs  to  the  river,  the  water  should  in  most  cases  be  diverted.  Where  the 
volume  of  flood  water  carried  by  the  hill  stream  is  large,  it  should  ordinarily 
be  carried  directly  to  the  river,  and  a  levee  be  constructed  on  each  side  of 
the  ditch  to  prevent  the  flooding  of  the  land  in  the  district,  which  is  usually 
lower  at  the  bluff  than  at  the  river.  Frequently  such  a  stream  will  form  a 
natural  division  line  between  districts.  For  example  Bear  Creek  in  Adams 
County  forms  the  joint  boundary  of  the  Lima  Lake  and  Indian  Grave  Dis- 
tricts ;  likewise  Apple  Creek  in  Green  County  separates  the  Hartwell  and 
Keach  Districts ;  and  Macoupin  Creek  was  diverted  directly  into  the  Illinois 
and  is  the  boundary  of  the  Eldred  and  Nutwood  districts.  Many  more 
examples  of  this  kind  might  be  cited. 

If  the  hill  waters  enter  the  district  through  a  number  of  small  channels 
in  large  enough  quantities  to  be  objectionable,  a  diversion  ditch  along  the 
foot  of  the  bluff  will  intercept  all  of  them  and  carry  their  waters  around 
the  lower  end  (usually)  of  the  district  to  the  outlet  stream  below. 

If  the  levee  district  has  a  pumping  plant,  as  it  usually  should  have,  and 
the  volume  of  water  from  the  bluff  is  small,  it  will  probably  prove  more 

222 


DIVERSION  DITCHES  223 

economical  to  allow  the  water  to  enter  the  ditches  of  the  district  and  be 
pumped  over  the  levee;  but  for  large  volumes  it  is  much  cheaper  to  con- 
struct a  diversion  ditch  than  it  is  to  install  pumps  of  sufficient  capacity  to 
handle  the  additional  water.  Under  what  conditions  it  becomes  more 
economical  to  divert  the  water  than  to  pump  it,  involves  careful  engineering 
study;  and  hence  drainage  commissioners  having  this  problem  will  save 
money  for  their  districts  by  consulting  a  competent  drainage  engineer. 

In  many  cases  diversion  ditches  are  necessary  for  the  successful  opera- 
tion of  districts.  Many  of  the  most  successful  districts  along  Illinois  River 
have  diverted  the  hill  streams. 

The  factors  which  determine  the  run-off"  from  the  hill  lands,  in  the 
order  of  their  importance,  are  as  follows:  (1)  the  slope  and  roughness  of 
the  land  surface;  (2)  the  character  of  the  soil,  whether  loam,  sand,  clay,  or 
rock;  (3)  the  cultural  features,  that  is,  whether  the  land  is  under  cultivation 
or  covered  with  trees,  brush,  and  other  vegetation;  (4)  the  size  of  the 
watershed;  and  (5)  the  amount  of  rainfall. 

It  may  be  wondered  as  to  why  the  factor  of  rainfall  is  given  last  in 
the  above  enumeration.  This  is  because  there  is  very  little  difference  in 
the  intensity  of  storms  to  which  all  watersheds  in  the  Mississippi  valley  are 
subjected  at  different  times  and  because  all  the  watershed  areas  under  con- 
sideration are  small.  The  first  three  factors  are  the  important  ones.  It 
can  readily  be  seen  that  the  run-off  from  an  area  with  steep,  rocky  or  clayey 
slopes,  free  from  vegetable  growth,  will  be  much  greater  than  from  a  less 
rugged  area  with  more  pervious  soil,  and  with  some  vegetal  cover. 

Districts  are  damaged  not  only  by  the  water  from  the  higher  land  but 
also  from  the  silt,  sand,  and  gravel  carried  down  by  it. 

Not  enough  attention  has  been  given  to  keeping  sediment  out  of  the 
drainage  ditches,  including  diversion  ditches,  and  commissioners  have  been 
put  to  much  expense  and  trouble  which  might  have  been  prevented. 

Where  the  water  enters  the  ditches  of  the  district,  much  silt  is  deposited 
and  must  periodically  be  removed.  To  catch  the  silt  before  it  gets  into  the 
ditches  a  few  districts  have  provided  sedimentation  basins  at  the  foot  of 
the  bluffs.  These  basins  are  surrounded  by  levees  with  an  inlet  for  the 
hill  streams  and  a  higher  outlet  at  the  ditch  end.  The  pond  thus  formed 
checks  the  velocity  of  the  water,  the  material  carried  in  suspension  is 
consequently  dropped,  and  the  water  flowing  out  of  the  basin  into  the 
ditches  is  practically  free  from  coarse  sediment  and  drift.  Eventually  such 
a  basin  will  be  filled  and  may  become  cultivable;  and  an  adjacent  area  must 
be  used  for  a  new  basin.  Such  basins  are  advisable  for  diversion  ditches 
also. 

Low  check  dams  constructed  at  intervals  in  the  channel  of  the  hill 
stream  will  also  have  the  effect  of  reducing  the  velocity,  and  at  least  the 
heavier  sediment  will  be  deposited  behind  them  rather  than  be  carried  into 


224  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

the  river  valley.  During  low  water  or  when  the  channel  is  dry,  the  material 
collected  behind  the  dams  can  be  removed. 

The  writer  has  one  district  in  mind  where  the  ditches  have  been  cleaned 
several  times  of  the  sand  deposited  in  them,  and  the  spoil  banks  have 
washed  out  beyond  the  right-of-way  and  damaged  the  adjoining  land.  The 
commissioners  have  had  to  buy  an  extra  strip  of  right-of-way  in  conse- 
quence. 

A  plan  now  proposed  for  the  Hunt  and  Lima  Lake  districts  may  prove 
applicable  elsewmere  and  is  worthy  of  a  brief  description.  It  is  proposed 
to  construct  a  diversion  ditch  outside  of  the  bottom  land  on  the  slope  of  the 
higher  ground  in  order  to  give  the  ditch  sufficient  grade  to  make  the  ditch 
self-cleaning.  A  dam  is  planned  at  the  lower  end  of  the  hill  stream  so  as  to 
raise  the  water  to  the  level  of  the  diversion  ditch.  This  dam  will  impound 
the  water  for  a  short  distance  upstream  and  cause  most  of  the  sediment  to 
be  deposited.  Also  several  small  check  dams  upstream  are  proposed.  The 
topography  lends  itself  admirably  to  this  plan  and  it  should  prove  effective 
and  relieve  the  district  of  the  periodic  expense  of  cleaning  ditches.  The 
objection  to  the  plan  is  that  the  diversion  ditch  is  outside  the  district  and 
that  a  right-of-way  through  the  higher  land  will  have  to  be  purchased. 

The  construction  of  a  diversion  ditch  at  the  foot  of  the  bluff  is  the 
same  as  that  of  any  other  ditch,  except  that  the  excavated  material  is  used  to 
form  a  levee  on  the  side  toward  the  district. 

Since  a  diversion  ditch  is  connected  with  the  river  at  the  lower  end, 
it  is  subject  to  backwater  and  consequent  silting  during  high  stages.  Never- 
theless it  is  preferable  to  have  the  silting  here  rather  than  in  the  main  ditch 
of  the  district.  In  a  pumping  district,  very  little  of  the  sediment  is  pumped 
out  with  the  water,  and  practically  all  of  the  material  brought  down  from 
the  hills  is  deposited  in  the  ditches,  unless  a  sedimentation  basin  is  provided. 

From  the  foregoing  discussion  it  is  seen  that  diversion  ditches  are  very 
necessary  parts  of  the  drainage  works  of  most  river  districts.  Where 
constructed  they  have  given  valuable  protection  to  the  land,  and  have  been 
good  investments  in  spite  of  the  occasional  cost  of  cleaning  them. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII— PUMPING  PLANTS 

Pumping  plants  should  be  installed  by  any  levee  district  in  which  the 
average  annual  crop  loss,  due  to  too  much  water,  is  greater  than  the  interest 
on  the  cost  of  constructing  and  operating  such  a  plant. 

Most  of  the  districts  along  Illinois  River  operate  pumping  plants 
and  have  found  them  to  be  an  essential  part  of  their  drainage  works.  Most 
of  these  pumping  districts  have  been  established  since  1905.  The  pumps 
of  the  early  ones  were  entirely  too  small  and  have  been  added  to  or  entirely 
replaced  by  new  plants.  The  more  recent  installations  are  models  of 
efficiency  and  the  decreased  cost  of  operation  and  the  thorough  drainage  of 
the  land  has  more  than  paid  for  the  improvement. 

Along  Mississippi  River  in  Illinois  only  a  few  districts  are  thus  equipped 
with  the  result  that  a  considerable  portion  of  the  land  in  them  is  too  wet  to 
be  cultivated  or  else  is  only  producing  partial  crops.  The  higher  market 
value  of  the  Illinois  bottom  land  as  compared  with  that  along  the  Mississippi 
is  an  indication  of  the  value  of  pumping  plants. 

Along  the  smaller  streams  of  the  State,  such  as  the  Kaskaskia,  Em- 
barrass, and  Little  Wabash,  some  levee  districts  may  be  able  to  dispense  with 
pumps,  especially  if  diversion  ditches  are  constructed  to  keep  out  the  hill 
water. 

In  some  cases  it  is  feasible  and  more  economical  to  construct  gravity 
outlet  ditches  leading  from  the  lower  end  of  the  district  downstream  sev- 
eral miles  till  an  outlet  can  be  had  in  the  river.  Such  ditches  are  feasible 
where  the  fall  in  the  main  stream  is  such  that  the  backwater  entering  the 
outlet  ditch  will  not  reach  the  land  in  the  district.  Gravity  outlet  ditches  are 
located  parallel  to  the  river  levee  and  require  an  inside  levee  of  gradually  in- 
creasing height  to  keep  the  water  out  of  the  adjoining  lands.  Whether  to 
use  such  a  gravity  ditch,  where  the  topographical  conditions  permit,  or  to 
install  pumps  is  purely  an  economic  question.  In  comparing  the  costs  of  the 
two  plans,  the  annual  operation  and  maintenance  of  the  pumping  plant  must 
be  considered  as  well  as  the  initial  cost. 

Pumping  should  be  avoided  if  possible,  since  it  is  a  source  of  continual 
trouble  and  expense.  It  is  suggested,  where  there  is  any  question  as  to  the 
necessity  of  pumps,  that  their  construction  be  delayed  until  the  other  drainage 
works  are  completed  and  in  operation,  and  then  if  the  land  is  too  wet  and 
the  consequent  damage  to  crops  sufficient  to  warrant  the  expense,  it  will 
be  an  easy  matter  to  add  the  pumping  equipment. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  operate  the  pumps  through  the  entire  year  and 
most  districts  pump  only  from  60  to  90  days  of  24  hours  each.  In 
the  late  summer  and  fall,  when  the  precipitation  is  usually  light  and  the 
evaporation  high,  pumping  is  rarely  needed.     During  the  winter  months  the 

(225) 


226  LAND  DRANAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

ground  becomes  saturated  unless  occasional  pumping  is  resorted  to.  This 
practice  is  followed  by  some  districts.  In  the  spring  the  pumps  are  run 
day  and  night  until  the  water  in  the  districts  is  lowered  sufficiently,  and 
then  they  are  operated  during  the  day  only.  After  a  while  days  are  skipped 
and  the  periods  between  pumpings  increase  until  presently  pumping  is  re- 
quired only  after  heavy  rains.  Frequently  the  sluice  gates  can  be  used  at 
this  time  and  the  pumps  are  not  needed.  If  a  district  will  give  proper  at- 
tention to  its  pumping,  so  as  to  keep  the  ground  water  at  a  low  elevation, 
the  drained  soil  will  have  considerable  storage  capacity,  the  run-off  during 
storms  will  be  less,  and  a  smaller  pumping  plant  will  be  required. 

The  pumping  station  should  be  located  where  the  water  can  be  brought 
to  it  most  conveniently  and  with  the  least  expenditure  for  interior  ditches. 
It  is  generally  situated  at  the  lower  end  of  the  district,  but  in  a  few  instances 
the  upper  end  has  been  used  because  of  greater  accessibility  for  the  delivery 
of  fuel.  A  good  foundation  is  very  essential  and  this  factor  may  influence 
the  location  of  the  station. 

The  size  of  pump  required  for  a  district  depends  upon  ( 1 )  the  area  of 
the  district  and  of  the  land  outside  which  drains  into  it,  and  (2)  the  desired 
rate  of  removal  of  the  water  from  the  district,  which  in  turn  is  influenced 
by  the  intensity  and  duration  of  storms  and  the  character  of  the  high  land 
outside.  The  first  of  these  is  readily  determined  but  the  second  is  more 
difficult  to  decide  upon.  The  rate  of  removal  is  usually  expressed  in  inches 
of  depth  over  the  entire  watershed  area  in  a  period  of  24  hours,  and  is 
called  the  "drainage  coefficient."  The  value  of  this  coefficient  for  Illinois 
conditions  ranges  from  a  quarter  to  half  an  inch.  The  factors  which  de- 
termine the  value  to  be  used  are :  ( 1 )  the  intensity  and  duration  of  storms ; 
(2)  the  character  of  the  watershed  outside  the  district;  (3)  the  size,  ar- 
rangement, and  grade  of  the  interior  ditches;  and  (4)  the  availability  of  an 
area  which  might  be  used  as  a  reservoir  during  extreme  storms. 

There  is  little  difference  in  the  intensity  and  duration  of  storms  which 
might  occur  over  such  small  areas  as  are  contained  in  levee  districts  and 
their  tributary  drainage  area,  though  in  general  the  southern  portion  of  the 
State  experiences  a  greater  annual  rainfall  than  the  northern. 

The  character  of  the  hill  land  draining  into  a  district  has  an  important 
bearing  upon  the  drainage  coefficient.  If  the  slopes  are  steep  and  bare,  and 
the  surface  is  composed  of  clay  or  rock,  nearly  all  of  the  precipitation  will 
run  off  and  reach  the  ditches  of  the  district  in  a  short  time  and  overtax  the 
capacity  of  the  pumps,  unless  sufficient  engine  power  has  been  provided  to 
handle  the  extra  load. 

Since  the  ditches  of  a  pumping  district  serve  as  temporary  reservoirs 
as  well  as  channels,  they  are  generally  constructed  of  larger  cross-section 
than  those  in  ordinary  drainage  districts,  and  with  flatter  grades  so  that 
the  water  will  not  be  carried  to  the  pumps  too  rapidly. 


PUMPING    PLANTS 


227 


Some  districts  make  use  of  old  ponds  and  sloughs  for  reservoirs  during 
intense  storms  to  store  the  water  until  the  storm  has  passed  and  the  pumps 
can  take  care  of  it.    In  this  way  smaller  pumps  can  be  used. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  choice  of  drainage  coefficient  involves  a  number 
of  items  which  should  be  considered  by  some  one  who  is  fitted  by  training 
and  experience  to  analyze  them  intelligently.  Drainage  commissioners  are 
rarely  competent  to  decide  this  question,  and  expert  advice  on  this  and  other 
matters  connected  with  pumping  plant  design  is  the  best  insurance  against 
failure  which  commissioners  can  provide  for  their  districts. 

The  centrifugal  pump  is  the  most  suitable  type  for  drainage  work.  Its 
advantages  are  that  it  is  reliable,  is  simple  in  construction,  has  no  valves, 
occupies  little  space,  and  can  be  obtained  in  all  sizes.  Its  disadvantages  are 
that  it  must  be  primed  in  starting,  can  be  operated  satisfactorily  only  within 
narrow  ranges  of  speed,  and  its  efficiency  under  practical  conditions  that 
exist  in  drainage  pumping  is  low.  Steam  is  the  operating  power  generally 
employed,  though  electric  motors  and  gas  and  oil  engines  are  also  used.  The 
size  of  the  pump  and  the  availability  of  a  coal  supply  or  of  electric  power 
usually  determines  the  most  economical  form  of  power. 

The  size  of  a  pump  is  the  diameter  of  the  discharge  opening  and  the 
sizes  applicable  to  drainage  districts  range  from  12  to  48  inches;  but  larger 
ones  are  occasionally  used.  For  example  the  Hillview  District  along  Illinois 
River  in  Scott  and  Green  counties  has  recently  installed  a  60-inch  pump; 
and  72-inch  pumps  have  been  recommended  for  the  East  Side  Levee  and 
Sanitary  District  around  East  St.  Louis. 

The  capacity  of  pumps  is  based  on  an  assumed  discharge  velocity  of 
10  feet  per  second ;  but  as  actually  operated,  the  velocity  is  nearer  8  feet. 
This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  as  the  head  pumped  against  is  increased,  the 

Table  32. — Rated  capacity  of  centrifugal  pumps 


Size 

Capacity 

Cu.  ft.  per  sec. 

Gal.  per  min. 

12 

7.8 

12.3 

17.7 

21.8 

31.4 

49.1 

55.8 

70.7 

96.2 

110.5 

127.5 

159.0 

196.3 

3,500 

5,520 

7,950 

9,800 

14,100 

22,050 

25,050 

31  750 

15 

18 

20 -.. 

24 

30 

32 

36 

42 

43,200 
49,600 
56,400 
71,380 
88,150 

45 

48 

54 

60 

228 


LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 


speed  of  the  pump  must  also  be  increased,  and  at  high- water  stages  some 
districts  do  not  have  enough  engine  power  to  furnish  the  requisite  speed. 
With  sufficient  power,  pumps  can  be  operated  at  probably  25  per  cent  above 
their  rated  capacities  with  small  loss  of  efficiency. 

The  rated  capacities  of  centrifugal  pumps  of  various  sizes  is  given  in 
Table  32. 

For  the  use  of  land  owners  and  commissioners  in  making  preliminary 
estimates  of  pumping  capacity  required,  the  following  table  has  been  pre- 
pared. 

Table  33. — Pumping  capacity  required  for  various  sizes  of  watersheds 


Size  of  watershed 
In  Acres 


Pumping  Capacity 


3^ -inch  in  24  hours 


Number 


Size 


3^2-inch  in  24  hours 


Number 


Size 


1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

7,500 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 


Inches 

15 

20 

24 

20 

32 
30  and  24 

32 
45  and  30 

36 


Inches 

20 

20 

36 

32 

32 
45  and  30 

36 
48,48,  and  36 
54,  54,  and  45 


For  the  larger  districts,  combinations  of  pump  sizes  other  than  those 
given  in  the  table  may  be  used,  but  the  total  capacity  should  not  be  less  than 
that  given. 

The  cost  of  a  pumping  plant  depends  not  only  upon  the  number  and 
sizes  of  pumps,  but  also  upon  the  maximum  distance  through  which  the 
water  has  to  be  lifted.  The  cost  of  such  a  plant  at  present  prices  can  be 
roughly  estimated  by  multiplying  the  required  capacity  of  the  pumps  in 
cubic  feet  per  second  by  the  hydrostatic  head  pumped  against,  and  this 
product  by  37.  For  example,  the  total  cost  of  a  pumping  station  housing  a 
30-inch  pump  and  the  necessary  engines  and  accessories  to  pump  against  a 
20-foot  head,  will  be  about  $36,000.  The  cost  of  plants  for  small  districts 
will  be  greater  proportionally  than  for  large  ones. 

The  cost  of  operating  a  pumping  plant  depends  to  a  large  extent  upon 
its  correct  design,  kind  of  power  used,  and  management.  A  plant  can  not 
be  run  economically  unless  the  pumps  are  of  ample  capacity  and,  more  im- 
portant still,  unless  the  engines  are  capable  of  very  flexible  operation.  The 
engines  should  be  adjustable  for  a  considerable  range  of  speed  and  should 


PUMPING    PLANTS 


229 


be  able  to  carry  a  considerable  overload  and  to  work  economically  through 
a  wide  range  of  loads. 

Bulletin  No.  304,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  entitled  "Land 
Drainage  by  Means  of  Pumps,"  by  S.  M.  Woodward,1  contains  valuable  in- 
formation on  this  subject  and  the  following  table  has  been  prepared  from 
data  given  there : 

Table  34. — Cost  of  operating  pumping  plants  for  the  years  prior  to  1915 


District 


No.  of  years 

of 

operation 


Cost  of  labor,  fuel, 

repairs,  supplies 
and  superintendence 
per  acre  of  water- 
shed area 


Total  cost,  including 

fixed  charges  of 

interest,  depreciation 

taxes  and  insurance 

per  year  per  acre 

of  watershed  area 


Steam-driven  plants 


Nutwood 

Eldred 

Hillview 

Big  Swan 

Meredosia 

Crane  Creek 

Lacey 

Lacey 

Coal  Creek 

Spring  Lake 

Louisa-Des  Moines . 

Des  Moines  County 

Average 


$0,607 
.713 
.616 
.623 
.893 
.807 
.740 
1.220 
1.210 
.729 
.799 
.404 
.780 


Electrically  driven  plants 


Big  Swan 

Lacey 

Pekin-LaMarsh . 

Coal  Creek 

East  Peoria .... 
Average 


.893 

1.406 

1.413 

1.296 

1.890 

1.380 


After  a  pumping  plant  is  completed  it  should  be  tested  to  see  that  the 
pumps  and  engines  comply  with  the  specifications  as  regards  capacity  and 
efficiency. 

iThis  Bulletin  can  be  obtained  from  the  Superintendent  of  Documents,  Washington, 
D.  C,  for  15  cents. 


PART  III.    LEGAL  PROBLEMS 

BY  F.  B.  LEONARD,  JR. 

CHAPTER  XXXIV— THE  DRAINAGE  LAWS  OF  ILLINOIS 

Foreword 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  report  to  attempt  to  lay  before  the  legislature 
as  clear  a  statement  as  possible  of  what  the  present  drainage  law  of  Illinois 
is;  to  suggest  defects  particularly  in  the  present  statute  laws;  and  to  suggest 
certain  legislative  improvements  which,  if  made,  should  lessen  the  expense 
and  encourage  the  reclamation  of  the  wet  and  overflowed  lands,  the  need  for 
which  has  already  been  pointed  out  elsewhere  in  this  bulletin.  It  is  not  our 
purpose  to  deal  with  the  law  in  relation  to  sanitary  districts,  but  simply  to 
deal  with  the  legal  aspects  of  the  reclamation  of  swamp  and  overflowed  lands. 

Therefore,  we  shall  treat  this  subject  under  four  main  heads: 

I.     The  law  of  natural  drainage  in  the  absence  of  statute. 
II.     The  present  statute  laws :    the  Farm  Drainage  Act  and  the 
Levee  Act. 

III.  Defects  in  the  present  laws. 

IV.  Suggestions  for  improvement  by  legislation. 

The  Law  of  Natural  Drainage  in  the  Absence  of  Statute 

A  very  important  part  of  the  drainage  law  of  Illinois  is  not  found  in  the 
statutes,  but  is  contained  in  the  decisions  of  our  courts  establishing  the  rights 
of  natural  drainage  of  surface  waters,  long  before  any  statutes  on  the  subject 
were  enacted. 

The  fundamental  principle  that  underlies  all  drainage  law  in  this  State 
is  that  of  allowing  natural  drainage ;  and  when  in  a  state  of  nature  one  parcel 
of  land  so  lies  that  it  drains  across  a  lower  adjoining  piece  of  land  through 
natural  depressions,  it  is  entitled  to  this  natural  advantage.  Our  Supreme 
Court  has  adopted  this  natural  servitude  as  the  basis  for  a  legal  rule  to  deter- 
mine the  rights  and  duties  of  such  landowners.  The  lower  proprietor  cannot 
do  anything  to  prevent  the  natural  flow  of  surface  water  and  cast  it  back 
upon  the  land  above.1 

The  first  and  most  important  principle,  then,  of  drainage  law  is  that  the 
owner  of  the  servient  tenement  is  bound  to  receive  the  surface  water  nat- 
urally flowing  to  his  land  from  higher  land  through  natural  depressions  or 
swales.     This  means  that  a  railroad  embankment  must  be  constructed  with 


iBradbury  v.  Vandalia  D.  D.,  236  111.  36,  42. 


THE   DRAINAGE   LAWS    OF    ILLINOIS  231 

sufficient  openings  to  care  for  water  that  naturally  flows  across  the  right  of 
way  in  a  state  of  nature.  It  also  means  that  unless  a  city  has  adopted  a 
system  of  artificial  drainage  such  as  a  sewer  system,  the  owner  of  a  lot 
which  is  lower  than  an  adjoining  lot  must  receive  or  arrange  for  the  drain- 
age of  water  coming  from  the  higher  lot.1  There  is  one  qualification  appear- 
ing in  the  rule  that  needs  to  be  pointed  out,  namely,  that  the  surface  water 
must  drain  off  in  a  natural  depression  or  channel.  The  lower  landowner  is 
under  no  duty  to  receive  mere  diffused  water  flowing  on  to  his  land  from 
higher  land.2  If  the  law  had  stopped  here  and  had  limited  the  right  of  the 
owner  of  the  dominant  heritage  to  drain  his  land  just  as  it  had  been  drained 
in  a  state  of  nature,  and  had  restricted  the  duty  of  the  lower  owner  to  re- 
ceiving only  such  waters  as  would  have  come  to  him  in  a  state  of  nature, 
allowing  him  to  dam  against  any  artificial  increase,  but  little  real  advantage 
would  have  resulted,  since  the  cultivation  and  improvement  of  land  neces- 
sarily makes  changes  in  the  amount  and  velocity  of  the  water  drained  off. 

The  next  question  that  arose  in  the  courts  was  as  to  the  right  of  the 
dominant  owner  to  collect  the  surface  water  on  his  land  and  discharge  it 
upon  the  land  of  the  servient  owner.  A  man  had  a  pond  in  his  farm  and 
proposed  to  cut  through  the  rim  of  the  pond  and  let  the  water  flow  off 
through  natural  channels  on  to  lower  land.  The  lower  landowner  sought 
to  enjoin  this.  The  court  held,  that  in  the  interest  of  good  husbandry  the 
owner  of  higher  land  could  drain  his  ponds  or  collect  surface  water  that 
naturally  would  fall  in  pools  and  hasten  its  flow  by  digging  artificial  ditches 
on  the  higher  land,  provided  that  the  water  was  discharged  on  the  land  of 
the  lower  owner  at  the  place  where,  in  a  state  of  nature,  it  would  have 
flowed  if  the  pond  or  pools  had  been  filled  with  dirt  and  the  water  thereby 
been  forced  out  into  the  natural  channels  of  drainage.3  This  means  that 
all  lands  lying  within  a  natural  basin  may  be  drained  into  the  tributary  water 
course  (whether  a  stream  or  a  mere  depression)  which  drains  that  basin; 
and  the  lower  landowners  cannot  object  that  the  amount  of  flowage  is  in- 
creased by  artificial  ditches  constructed  by  the  dominant  owner  on  his  own 
land  so  long  as  the  artificial  ditches  only  drain  the  natural  basin.  This  sensi- 
ble extension  of  the  earlier  rule  gives  the  upper  owner  of  the  land  large 
rights  of  drainage,  irrespective  of  statute.  The  only  limitation  on  hastening 
the  flow  by  such  artificial  channels  is  that  they  must  all  drain  one  natural 
basin.  The  upper  owner  cannot  cut  through  a  watershed  ridge  and  drain 
on  to  lower  land,  water  which  in  a  state  of  nature  never  could  have  reached  it. 

In  the  leading  case  on  the  subject4  the  servient  owners  were  represented 
by  drainage  commissioners,  who  brought  a  bill  in  chancery  to  restrain  Dayton 
from  cutting  through  a  natural  divide  to  drain  a  slough  into  the  system  of 


iGormley  v.  Sanford,  52  111.  158. 
2Bischman  v.  Boelil.  30  111.  App.  455. 
3Peck  v.  Harrington,  109  111.  611. 
4Dayton  v.  Dr.  Commissioners,  12cS  111.  2  71 


232  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

drainage  ditches.  The  court  Held  that  the  injunction  should  be  granted  and 
that  Dayton  had  no  right  to  divert  the  waters  of  the  slough  into  the  channel 
wholly  different  from  that  in  which  they  would  naturally  run. 

We  have  seen  then  that  by  common  law  in  this  state,  the  servient  owner 
is  under  a  legal  duty  to  receive  and  dispose  of  all  waters  coming  from  higher 
land  through  natural  channels  and  that  the  upper  owner  has  the  legal  right, 
in  the  interests  of  good  husbandry,  to  accelerate  the  flow  in  such  natural 
channels  by  digging  artificial  ditches  on  his  own  land  to  carry  off  the  water 
more  quickly,  provided  that  he  does  not  cut  through  a  natural  divide  and 
divert  water  on  to  the  lower  land  that  never  could  have  reached  it  in  a  state 
of  nature,  but,  on  the  contrary,  would  have  drained  elsewhere. 

It  is  very  important  to  get  these  common  law  rights  of  drainage  clearly 
in  mind  for  the  reason  that  the  statutory  systems  are  based  on  benefits  con- 
ferred by  drainage  districts,  and  in  the  absence  of  benefits  conferred,  a  drain- 
age district  has  no  jurisdiction  over  land  sought  to  be  included  in  it.  The 
courts  hold  that  if  a  man  has  adequate  drainage  under  the  above  common  law 
rules,  then  he  is  not  benefited  by  a  drainage  district  under  the  statutes  (except 
for  sanitary  benefits  which  are  negligible),  and  his  land  cannot  be  included 
in  a  drainage  district  against  his  wish.  In  other  words,  before  a  drainage 
district  can  get  jurisdiction  over  a  man's  land  it  must  appear  that  he  has 
imperfect  drainage  at  common  law.  The  mere  fact  that  the  ditches  of  a 
drainage  district  carry  off  water  that  originates  on  the  land  of  a  farmer  does 
not  necessarily  mean,  in  a  legal  sense,  that  the  farmer  is  benefited  by  the 
drainage  district,  for  if  it  appeared  that  the  water  would  naturally  have  flowed 
off  the  land  of  the  farmer,  or  could  legally  have  been  made  to  flow  off  his  land 
by  artificial  ditches  on  his  own  land,  then  he  has  adequate  drainage  at  common 
law  and  he  cannot  be  taxed  simply  because  that  water,  after  it  leaves  his  land, 
finds  its  way  to  the  larger  outlets  through  the  ditches  of  a  drainage  district. 

Having  noted  the  importance  of  common  law  rights  of  drainage  as  affect- 
ing the  statutory  systems  of  drainage,  let  us  now  turn  again  to  the  application 
of  the  principles  of  common  law  drainage.  We  have  seen  that  the  lower 
proprietor  is  bound  to  receive  from  the  upper  owner  the  water  that  naturally 
drains  to  him  and  that  the  flow  may  be  accelerated  by  the  upper  owner,  within 
the  basin  drained.  It  would  seem  that  this  right  is  not  qualified  by  the  fact 
that  the  acceleration  by  the  upper  owner  actually  injures  the  lower  owner  by 
washing  his  land  or  in  other  ways.  In  Railroad  Co.  v.  A  dams,1  the  defendants 
owned  land  east  of  the  plaintiff's  railroad.  The  natural  course  of  drainage 
through  defendant's  land  was  in  the  form  of  an  "ox-bow  loop."  The  water 
entered  defendant's  land  in  times  of  rain  from  a  rocky  gorge  on  the  east  and 
carried  sand  and  debris  which  were  deposited  on  the  defendant's  land  in 
the  long  meander  around  the  loop.     The  defendant  proposed  to  cut  a  ditch 


1221  111.  201. 


THE    DRAINAGE    LAWS    OF    ILLINOIS  233 

straight  through  the  loop  and  discharge  the  water  on  the  right  of  way  of  the 
railroad  at  the  same  point  where  the  loop  had  discharged  the  water ;  but  the 
effect  of  the  short  cut  was  to  greatly  accelerate  the  velocity  of  the  flow  against 
the  plaintiff's  railroad  embankment  and  also  to  cast  the  sand  and  debris 
thereon.  The  court  held  that  the  actual  damage  occasioned  the  railroad  was 
no  ground  for  an  injunction. 

Although  no  court  seems  ever  to  have  considered  the  question,  it  is 
probable  that  this  right  to  accelerate  the  flow  by  artificial  ditches  on  the 
dominant  tenement  is  limited  to  the  requirements  of  good  husbandry.  If 
done  wantonly,  with  the  purpose  of  injuring  the  lower  owner,  then  it  is  sub- 
mitted that  by  analogy  to  the  spite  well  and  spite  fence  cases1  a  court  of 
equity  would  enjoin  the  acts  of  the  dominant  owner  if  an  improper  motive 
were  clearly  shown. 

There  is  another  right  of  natural  drainage  closely  akin  to  the  right  we 
have  been  considering.  Not  only  can  the  owner  of  the  dominant  heritage  drain 
his  land  into  the  natural  depressions  separating  his  land  from  the  land  of  a 
lower  owner,  but  he  can  also  drain  his  land,  within  a  natural  basin  into  a 
creek  or  stream  flowing  through  the  upper  land.  Of  course,  as  a  practical 
matter  the  right  to  do  this  is  not  often  questioned,  because  draining  into  a 
creek  which  has  ample  banks  does  no  actual  harm.  But  even  though  actual 
damage  results  to  the  lower  proprietors,  as  long  as  the  upper  owner  cuts 
through  no  natural  divide,  but  simply  hastens  the  flow  from  the  basin  into  the 
creek  which  drains  it,  he  is  within  his  legal  rights.2 

Accordingly,  when  an  upper  proprietor  drains  his  land  within  the  proper 
basin  into  a  stream,  which  stream  is  made  part  of  a  drainage  district  farther 
down,  and  as  a  part  of  the  drainage  improvement  is  dredged  and  widened,  the 
cost  of  the  drainage  improvement  cannot  be  assessed  against  the  upper  pro- 
prietor who  drains  into  the  stream. 

It  appears  then  to  be  our  common  law  that  the  owner  of  the  dominant 
heritage  has  the  right  to  drain  his  surface  waters  into  natural  drainways,  in- 
cluding both  streams  and  mere  depressions,  to  the  lands  lying  below  him,  and 
that  this  drainage  may  be  increased  by  artificial  ditches  within  the  natural 
basins  drained  by  such  drainways.  But  if  a  man  attempts  to  cut  through 
natural  divides  and  drain  on  to  the  land  of  his  neighbor  lower  down  waters 
that  could  not  get  there  naturally,  the  owner  of  the  servient  heritage  has  a 
right  to  dam  .against  such  waters3  or  to  enjoin  in  a  court  of  equity  such 
diversion  from  the  dominant  tenement.4  Of  course,  the  owner  of  the  domi- 
nant tenement  would  have  no  right  to  dig  artificial  ditches  on  his  own  land 
and  cast  on  to  the  servient  tenement  large  bodies  of  water  that  would  not  have 


koo    c?Yger^V-   B„aniSev,   151   N.   C.    432,    19   Ann.   Cases.    472;   Wheatley   v.    Baugh,    25   Pa. 
528,  64  Am.  Dec.  721. 

2See  Railroad  v.  Horan,   131   111.   288 

?>Schmitz  v.  Ort,   92   111.  App.   407. 

4Anderson  v.  Henderson,   124   111.   164. 


234  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

reached  such  lower  land  through  natural  drainways  at.  the  particular  point 
where  the  higher  owner  casts  the  water  on  to  the  lower  land.1 

The  whole  law  of  natural  drainage,  which  we  have  thus  discussed  depends 
upon  the  existence  of  a  dominant  and  a  servient  tenement,  which  depends,  in 
turn,  upon  a  difference  of  level  in  lands.  If,  therefore,  two  parcels  of  ground 
are  on  the  same  flat  level,  there  is  no  right  at  common  law  to  cast  water  on  to 
adjoining  land  or  to  dig  a  ditch  through  adjoining  land,  even  though  for 
lack  of  drainage  both  parcels  may  be  rendered  useless.2  Moreover,  the  pro- 
hibition against  cutting  through  slight  ridges  and  divides  often  makes  cultiva- 
tion of  swampy  land  very  difficult  if  dependence  for  drainage  must  be  placed 
solely  upon  the  common  law  rights. 

Another  situation  that  calls  for  relief  is  where  there  is  natural  drainage, 
but  the  drainways  have  become  choked  or  clogged,  or  the  fall  is  so  slight  that 
surface  waters  are  not  carried  away  fast  enough  to  allow  the  land  to  be 
cultivated.  At  common  law  such  a  situation  gives  no  right  to  one  landowner 
to  go  on  another's  land  and  open  up  a  channel  to  drain  off  his  lands. 

Where  lands  are  valuable  for  cultivation  and  the  country  depends  largely 
upon  agriculture,  the  public  welfare  demands  that  an  adequate  system  of 
drainage  shall  be  provided.  It  is  the  main  purpose  of  the  drainage  statutes 
of  the  State  to  make  it  possible  for  lands  to  be  improved  for  agriculture  and 
sanitation  by  draining  therefrom  the  surface  waters  where  the  natural  or 
common  law  drainage  rights  are  inadequate.  This  is  in  general  to  be  accom- 
plished by  the  organization  of  drainage  districts  for  the  construction,  by 
assessment,  of  a  system  of  ditches  and  drains,  and  in  some  cases  by  levees 
and  embankments,  which  will  divert  the  waters  of  creeks  and  rivers.3 

The  Present  Statute  Laws:    The  Farm  Drainage  Act 
and  the  Levee  Act 

In  the  preceding  discussion  we  pointed  out  the  necessity  for  legislative 
intervention  to  aid  the  reclamation  of  wet  and  overflowed  lands,  namely: 
the  slight  slope  of  land  in  large  flat  areas  which  prevents  the  flow-off  of 
water  by  gravity  and  the  limitation  imposed  on  the  upper  land  owner,  pre- 
venting him  under  any  circumstances  from  cutting  through  a  natural  divide. 

To  meet  this  situation,  after  the  passage  of  the  constitutional  amendment 
of  1878,  Article  IV,  Section  31,  which  empowered  the  General  Assembly  to 
pass  laws  providing  for  the  organization  of  drainage  districts  and  gave  their 
corporate  authorities  power  to  make  drainage  improvements  by  special  assess- 
ments upon  the  property  benefited  thereby,  the  legislature  passed  two  en- 
tirely separate  and  distinct  drainage  acts,  one  commonly  called  the  Levee 
Act  and  the  other  commonly  called  the  Farm  Drainage  Act.     Both  of  these 


iMellor  v.  Pilgrim,  7  111.  App.  306. 
2Deyo  v.  Ferris,  22  111.  App.  154. 
3Bay   Island   Dr.    D.    v.    Union    Dist.,    259    111.    194,    200. 


THE   DRAINAGE   LAWS    OF   ILLINOIS  235 

Acts  were  approved  May  29,  1879,  one  taking  effect  on  the  day  it  was  ap- 
proved and  the  second  on  the  first  of  July  following.  These  Acts  are  entirely 
independent  of  each  other  and  drainage  districts  organized  under  one  Act 
receive  no  privilege  or  powers  from  the  other  Act.1 

An  understanding  of  the  provisions  of  these  two  Acts  and  of  the  simi- 
larities and  differences  between  them  is  absolutely  necessary  to  a  comprehen- 
sion of  the  present  legal  situation  in  drainage  matters  in  this  State.  All  work 
in  drainage  districts  naturally  divides  itself  into  a  few  logical  steps : 

(a)  The  organization  of  the  drainage  district. 

(b)  Adoption  of  plans  for  work  and  raising  money  to  pay  for  the  same. 

(c)  The  construction  of  drainage  improvements  in  the  district. 

(d)  The  maintenance  of  those  improvements. 

(e)  Abandonment  and  dissolution  of  drainage  districts. 

(f)  Miscellaneous  powers,  duties,  and  succession  of  commissioners. 
We  shall  take  up  the  different  provisions  of  the  Levee  Act  and  of  the 

Farm  Drainage  Act  under  each  of  the  above  steps  so  that  a  comparison  of 
the  procedure  under  the  two  Acts  can  be  made  at  each  stage  of  the  pro- 
ceedings. 

ORGANIZATION 

All  districts  under  both  Acts  are  divided  into  two  general  classes  as 
respects  their  organization:  first,  districts  formed  by  mutual  agreements 
among  all  land  owners  affected  and  including  only  the  lands  of  the  parties 
to  the  agreement;  and  secondly,  districts  formed  on  petition  by  a  majority 
of  the  adult  land  owners  owning  one-third  in  area  of  the  land  or  one-third 
of  the  adult  land  owners  owning  a  majority  in  area  of  the  land  in  which 
an  unwilling  minority  whose  lands  will  be  benefited  by  the  proposed  improve- 
ment can  be  included  in  the  district. 

The  first  class  of  districts  is  found  in  both  the  Levee  Act  (Section  75) 
and  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  (Section  77)  and  is  popularly  known  as  "mutual 
districts."  Under  the  Levee  Act  in  mutual  districts  (Section  75)  the  whole 
nature  of  the  work  to  be  done  and  the  apportionment  of  the  expense  is  de- 
termined by  a  written  agreement  among  the  parties  and  the  affairs  of  the 
district  are  conducted  by  three  commissioners  who  may  be  appointed  by  the 
County  Court  if  the  agreement  so  provides  or  may  be  selected  from  among 
themselves  or  outsiders  and  the  vacancies  filled  by  annual  elections  to  be  held 
on  the  first  Monday  in  September  of  each  year  if  the  agreement  so  provides. 
Commissioners  are  given  the  powers  and  duties,  and  the  mode  and  effect  of 
special  assessments  are  the  same  as  provided  in  general  under  the  Levee  Act, 
subject,  however,  to  any  restriction  contained  in  the  written  agreement. 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  are  found  the  same  general  provisions 
respecting  the  written  agreement  with  a  provision  that  it  may  include  the 

]Gauen  v-  The  Dr>ainage  District,  134  111.  445;    C.  B.  &  Q.  Ry.   Co.  v.  People.   212  HI. 

luO,     1  \)  8  . 


236  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

selection  of  three  commissioners  and  their  terms  of  office  shall  be  until  the 
third  Tuesday  of  the  following  November  and  there  is  a  provision  that  a 
majority  may  in  writing  discontinue  the  voluntary  district  and  thereafter  "it 
shall  be  under  such  commissioners  as  is  herein  provided  for  other  districts 
of  this  class." 

These  mutual  districts  are  relatively  unimportant  for  it  requires  unani- 
mous consent  of  all  land  owners  in  an  area  to  effect  their  organization;  and 
in  order  to  get  their  unanimous  consent,  the  powers  of  the  commissioners 
and  of  the  district  must  usually  be  so  restricted  by  the  written  agreement 
that  adequate  drainage  improvements  are  made  impossible. 

The  second  general  class  of  drainage  districts,  that  in  which  a  majority 
can  coerce  a  minority,  is  far  more  common  than  any  other  type  and  is  the 
only  feasible  kind  of  district  for  doing  large  scale  drainage  work. 

Under  the  Levee  Act  there  is  only  one  form  of  organization  for  such  a 
district,  but  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  there  are  at  least  four  different 
kinds  of  organization,  namely: 

1.  Districts  lying  wholly  in  one  town. 

2.  Districts  lying  wholly  in  two  towns,  called  union  districts. 

3.  Districts  lying  in  three  or  more  towns,  in  the  same  or  different  coun- 

ties or  in  a  county  not  under  township  organization  or  partly  in  a 
county  under  township  organization  and  partly  in  a  county  not 
under  township  organization — commonly  called  special  drainage 
districts. 

4.  User  districts. 

Under  the  Levee  Act,  all  districts  including  a  minority  against  their 
wish,  are  organized  on  a  petition,  setting  forth  the  proposed  name  of  the 
drainage  district,  the  reason  or  necessity  for  the  same,  with  a  description  of 
the  proposed  starting  point,  routes,  and  termini  of  the  work,  and  a  general 
description  of  the  lands  proposed  to  be  included  with  the  names  of  their 
owners  when  known,  which  petition  must  be  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  adult 
land  owners  within  the  proposed  district  owning  one-third  in  area  of  said 
land  or  one-third  of  the  adult  land  owners  who  own  a  majority  in  area  of 
said  land.  This  petition  is  filed  in  the  County  Court  of  any  county  in  which 
the  greater  part  of  the  lands  sought  to  be  included  in  the  district,  lie. 

When  this  petition  is  filed,  the  clerk  of  the  County  Court  gives  three 
weeks'  notice  of  the  filing  of  the  petition  by  posting  notices  at  the  doors  of 
the  court  houses  of  the  counties  in  which  the  district  is  located  and  in  ten 
places  within  the  district  and  by  publishing  notices  in  the  paper  stating  when 
and  in  what  court  the  petition  is  filed ;  the  starting  point,  route,  termini,  and 
general  description  of  the  proposed  work;  the  boundaries  and  name  of  the 
proposed  drainage  district;  and  at  what  term  of  the  court  (or  what  par- 
ticular day)  the  petitioners  will  ask  for  a  hearing  on  the  petition:   and  pro- 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS   OF   ILLINOIS 


237 


vision  is  made  for  notifying  non-residents  by  mailing  them  a  copy  of  the 
notice. 

At  the  time  stated  in  the  notice  the  County  Court  hears  the  petition  and 
determines  just  two  matters :  first,  whether  the  petition  is  filed  by  the  requi- 
site majority  of  land  owners;  and  second,  whether  the  proposed  drainage 
work  is  necessary  or  will  be  useful  for  the  drainage  of  the  lands  named  in 
the  petition.  If  either  of  these  matters  is  found  against  the  petitioners,  the 
petition  is  dismissed;  but  if  the  court  finds  in  favor  of  the  petitioners  on 
these  two  matters,  the  court  appoints  three  competent  persons  as  commis- 
sioners not  more  than  two  of  whom  shall  come  from  the  same  county  if  the 
proposed  district  lies  in  more  than  one  county. 

It  will  be  well  to  stop  and  compare  the  organization  procedure  up  to  this 
point  with  the  analogous  provisions  of  the  Farm  Drainage  Act. 

In  one-town  districts,  two-town  districts,  and  special  drainage  districts, 
all  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  the  organization  of  the  district  is  initiated 
by  a  similar  petition  signed  by  a  majority  in  number  of  the  owners  of  land 
who  own  one-third  of  the  lands  lying  in  the  proposed  district,  or  by  one-third 
of  the  owners  who  own  a  major  part  of  the  land  in  the  proposed  district. 
The  petition  sets  forth  the  boundaries  of  the  proposed  district  and  the  lands 
in  it  that  require  a  combined  system  of  drainage  or  protection  from  wash  or 
overflow,  and  states  the  desire  of  the  petitioners  that  a  drainage  district  may 
be  organized  to  construct  drainage  improvements  by  assessment  upon  the 
property  benefited. 

The  substance  of  this  petition  is  the  same  for  all  these  three  kinds  of 
farm  drainage  districts. 

In  one-town  districts,  the  petition  is  filed  with  the  town  clerk  and  within 
five  days  thereafter,  he  gives  notice  in  writing  to  the  commissioner  of  high- 
ways of  the  town,  of  the  filing  of  the  petition  (as  the  Farm  Drainage  Act 
provides  that  the  commissioner  of  highways  in  one-town  districts  shall  be 
the  first  drainage  commissioner  of  all  drainage  districts  in  his  town),  and  the 
clerk  also  posts  three  notices  in  public  places  in  or  near  the  proposed  drain- 
age district,  that  a  meeting  of  the  drainage  commissioner  (who  is  the  high- 
way commissioner)  will  be  held  at  a  stated  place  and  not  less  than  eight  days 
nor  more  than  fifteen  days  from  the  date  of  the  notice  for  the  purpose  of 
organizing  the  drainage  district. 

At  the  meeting  the  drainage  commissioner  receives  the  petition  from  the 
town  clerk  and  ascertains  just  one  fact,  namely:  Whether  the  petition  is 
signed  by  the  requisite  majority  of  land  owners.  If  not,  the  petition  is  dis- 
missed;  if  it  is,  the  drainage  commissioner  takes  further  steps  which  will 
be  later  considered. 

In  two-town  districts  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  the.  petition  is  filed 
with  the  clerk  of  the  town  in  which  the  greater  part  of  the  district  lies  and 
(since  1919,  as  there  is  only  the  highway  commissioner  in  each  town)   the 


238  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

clerk  notifies  the  drainage  commissioner  (highway  commissioner)  of  each  of 
the  two  towns  of  the  time  when  they  shall  meet  at  his  office  not  less  than 
eight  days  nor  more  than  fifteen  days  from  the  date  of  the  notice,  and  posts 
three  notices  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  hearing  just  as  in  one- town  dis- 
tricts. Then  the  same  proceedings  are  had  before  the  two  drainage  com- 
missioners as  were  had  before  the  single  commissioner  in  one-town  districts, 
except  that  the  drainage  commissioner  of  the  town  in  which  the  larger  part 
of  the  land  in  the  proposed  district  lies  has  two  votes  to  the  other's  one.  At 
the  first  meeting  the  only  question  determined  is  whether  the  petition  is  signed 
by  the  requisite  majority  of  the  land  owners. 

In  special  drainage  districts  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  the  petition 
is  filed  in  the  County  Court  of  the  county  in  which  the  greater  part  of  the 
land  in  the  district  lies  and  must  be  accompanied  by  a  bond  signed  by  at 
least  three  responsible  persons,  conditioned  for  the  payment  of  court  costs 
and  costs  accruing  to  other  parties  in  case  the  district  is  not  established.  The 
•  clerk  of  that  court  gives  notice  by  posting  notices  in  at  least  five  public  places 
in  each  township  in  which  the  proposed  district  lies,  and  also  by  publishing 
for  three  weeks  a  newspaper  notice  in  the  counties  in  which  the  district  lies 
which  notice  must  contain  a  copy  of  the  petition  and  state  the  day  of  the 
term  of  court  when  the  petition  will  be  heard.  Provision  is  made  for  noti- 
fying non-residents.  At  the  hearing  before  the  court,  only  two  questions 
are  determined,  (1)  whether  the  petition  is  signed  by  the  requisite  majority 
of  land  owners  and  (2)  whether  the  proper  notice  has  been  given.  The 
hearing  can  be  continued  for  proper  notice,  but  if  the  court  finds  that  the 
requisite  majority  has  not  signed,  the  petition  is  dismissed.  If  the  court 
finds  the  petition  is  signed  by  the  requisite  majority  it  enters  an  order  to 
that  effect  and  appoints  three  drainage  commissioners  for  the  district. 

Thus  far,  we  have  dealt  with  the  requirements  of  the  petition  under 
both  the  Levee  Act  and  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  and  the  variant  steps  up 
to  the  point  where  commissioners  for  the  district  are  secured. 

There  is  one  more  anomalous  method  of  organization  under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act  for  what  are  known  as  districts  by  user  (Section  76  F.  D.  Act). 
That  section  provides  that  where  several  landowners  have  voluntarily  (and 
without  being  organized  into  a  drainage  district)  dug  artificial  ditches  which 
are  in  need  of  repair  and  when  they  cannot  agree  about  making  the  repairs, 
any  one  of  such  land  owners  can  petition  to  have  all  of  the  lands  which  are 
connected  by  such  drains  organized  into  a  farm  drainage  district.  If  these 
lands  lie  in  one  town,  the  petition  is  addressed  to  the  drainage  commissioner 
(highway  commissioner)  just  as  in  one-town  districts;  if  the  proposed  dis- 
trict lies  in  two  towns,  the  petition  is  addressed  to  the  two  drainage  com- 
missioners of  the  towns ;  and  if  the  proposed  district  lies  in  three  or  more 
towns,  the  petition  is  addressed  to  the  County  Court.  The  same  notices  are 
given  as  in  other  farm  drainage  districts,  and  at  the  first  hearing,  the  tribunal 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS    OF   ILLINOIS  239 

determines  the  jurisdictional  facts  (1)  whether  the  lands  described  in  the 
petition  are  connected  by  an  artificial  ditch  voluntarily  dug,  and  (2)  whether 
the  ditch  is  in  need  of  repairs.  The  ditches  must  be  artificial  and  land  to  be 
included  in  the  proposed  district  must  be  physically  connected  by  these  arti- 
ficial drains.1  The  description  in  the  petition  of  these  ditches  must  be  so 
definite  that  a  surveyor  can  locate  them.2  If  the  finding  of  the  tribunal  is 
in  favor  of  the  petitioners,  the  same  steps  as  to  appointment  of  commission- 
ers by  the  court  or  the  continuing  action  of  the  highway  commissioners  as 
drainage  commissioners  goes  on  precisely  as  in  other  farm  drainage  districts 
and  hence  the  further  steps  in  these  user  districts  will  not  be  specifically 
adverted  to  because  they  have  the  same  powers  and  limitations  as  other  farm 
drainage  districts.3 

Having  now  considered  the  steps  in  all  kinds  of  districts  up  to  the  point 
where  commissioners  for  the  district  are  secured,  we  now  go  back  to  the 
Levee  Act  and  take  up  the  further  proceedings  of  the  commissioners. 

Under  the  Levee  Act,  the  commissioners  after  their  appointment  by  the 
court  take  an  oath  (Section  6),  elect  one  of  their  number  chairman,  and  may 
elect  another  secretary  (Section  7).  A  majority  of  the  commissioners  con- 
stitutes a  quorum  and  a  concurrence  of  a  majority  in  any  matter  within  their 
duties  is  sufficient  (Section  8).  The  commissioners  then  examine  all  the  land 
proposed  in  the  petition  to  be  drained  and  ascertain  ( 1 )  if  the  drainage  work 
proposed  in  the  petition  is  properly  planned,  (2)  the  probable  cost  of  all  the 
work,  (3)  the  probable  annual  cost  of  keeping  it  in  repair  after  the  work  is 
completed,  (4)  the  probable  amount  of  damages  to  lands  by  reason  of  the 
work,  (5)  what  lands  will  be  benefited  and  whether  the  aggregate  benefits  will 
equal  or  exceed  the  cost  of  constructing  the  work,  and  (6)  whether  the  pro- 
posed district  includes  all  the  lands  that  will  be  benefited  or  whether  there 
are  additional  lands  (describing  them)  which  will  be  benefited  by  the  work, 
and  which  ought  to  be  included  within  the  district.  (There  is  a  provision  in 
the  law  for  a  report  by  the  commissioners  in  case  the  petition  calls  for  the 
repairing  of  drainage  work  "heretofore  constructed  under  any  law  of  this 
State,"  but  such  a  petition  refers  to  old  work  done  under  the  unconstitutional 
drainage  laws  passed  before  the  drainage  amendment  of  1878,  and  therefore 
has  no  present  application  and  will  be  ignored.) 

The  commissioners  reduce  their  findings  to  writing  and  report  them  to 
the  court,  and  if  they  find  that  the  cost  of  the  work  will  exceed  the  benefits, 
the  petition  is  dismissed  at  the  cost  of  the  petitioners,  but  if  they  find  that 
the  benefits  will  exceed  the  costs  before  reporting  to  the  court,  they  are 
authorized  to  have  the  proper  surveys,  plats,  specifications,  etc.,  made  showing 
specifically  the  work  which  should  be  done  in  the  district.  These  plans  may 
vary  from  the  work  proposed  in  the  petition.     The  boundaries  of  the  district 

iPeople  v.  Strand^tra,  238  111.   341  ;    Molohan  v.  Cashin,  258  111.  86. 
2Peo.  v.  McDonald,   264   111.    514. 
3Howard  v.  People,  126  111.   56. 


240  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

during  this  stage  may  be  enlarged  to  include  other  lands  benefited  by  the 
work  provided  that  this  enlargement  does  not  destroy  the  requisite  majority 
of  owners  and  area  necessary  to  make  the  petition  valid. 

At  the  date  of  the  appointment  of  the  commissioners,  the  cause  is  con- 
tinued to  a  day  certain  for  filing  their  report,  and  further  continuance  from 
time  to  time  may  be  granted  by  the  court  for  the  filing  of  their  report.  When 
the  report  is  finally  filed,  all  persons  must  take  notice  from  the  order  of  con- 
tinuance, of  the  time  of  the  hearing,  and  at  this  hearing,  objections  may  be 
filed  by  any  interested  party  to  the  plan  of  work  recommended  by  the  com- 
missioners, or  objections  may  be  made  by  any  interested  party  that  the  cost 
of  the  work  will  exceed  the  benefits.  At  the  hearing,  the  court  may  refer  the 
report  back  to  the  commissioners  for  changes  in  the  plans,  if  the  court  thinks 
the  same  should  be  made  or  the  plans  can  be  changed  at  once  on  the  hearing2 
When  the  court  is  finally  satisfied  that  a  feasible  plan  has  been  suggested  and 
that  the  benefits  will  exceed  the  costs^,  it  enters  an  order  finding  that  the 
district  should  be  organized,  confirming  the  commissioners'  report,  finding 
that  the  petition,  taking  into  account  any  annexed  lands,  still  contains  the 
requisite  majority  of  land  owners  and  naming  the  district.  The  form  of  this 
order  is  provided  by  the  statute  (Section  16).  From  this  order  an  appeal 
can  be  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court. 

In  brief,  under  the  Levee  Act,  after  commissioners  for  the  district  are 
secured,  they  supply  the  court  with  information  as  to  whether  the  cost  will 
exceed  the  benefits,  and  if  it  does  not,  just  what  plans  should  be  adopted  to 
secure  adequate  drainage  for  the  territory,  and  the  court,  acting  on  this  in- 
formation and  all  objections  by  the  land  owners,  organizes  the  district. 

It  is  impossible  to  go  into  the  whole  minutiae  of  these  proceedings,  but 
one  or  two  general  observations  may  be  helpful  in  understanding  the  decisions 
of  our  Supreme  Court.  One  is  that  the  County  Court  exercises  only  a  special 
statutory  jurisdiction  in  forming  drainage  districts,  and  that  no  presumption 
in  favor  of  its  action  is  allowed.  Its  jurisdiction  depends  upon  the  filing  of 
a  proper  petition  and  the  record  of  the  court  itself  must  show  that  a  proper 
petition  was  filed.  This  petition  must  conform  strictly  to  the  statute  and  if 
it  does  not,  the  order  of  the  court  establishing  the  district  is  a  nullity.2  The 
orders  of  continuance  must  be  entered  by  the  court  and  observed,  or  the  court 
will  lose  jurisdiction  and  the  district  cannot  be  organized  when  the  petition 
is  first  presented.3  One  drainage  district  cannot  be  organized  to  include  land 
in  another  drainage  district,  except  in  the  case  of  outlet  districts  under  Sec- 
tion 65a  of  the  Levee  Act.4 

Turning  now  to  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  in  one-  and  two-town  districts, 
after  the  meeting  to  receive  the  petition  is  held,  the  commissioners  adjourn 


iPeople  v.  Darst,  285  111.  533. 

2Drummer   D.    D.   v.    Roth.    244    111.    68  ;    Aldridge   v.   Matthews,    256    111.    202  ;    Peo. 
Swearing-en,  273  111.   630;    See  Stokes  v.  Bay  Bottoms  D.   D.,   278  111.  390. 
3Merkle  v.  Hathaway,  260  111.  186. 
4Peo.  v.  Crews,  245  111.  318. 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS    OF   ILLINOIS  241 

to  a  time  not  less  than  eight  days  nor  more  than  fifteen  days  distant  and 
announce  the  same  at  the  meeting.  In  the  meantime  they  go  upon  the  lands 
described  in  the  petition,  hire  an  engineer  if  necessary,  and  determine  whether 
additional  lands  should  be  included,  or  part  of  the  lands  described  in  the 
petition  should  be  excluded  (provided  that  such  inclusion  or  exclusion  does 
not  destroy  the  requisite  basic  majority  of  petitioners)  and  at  their  adjourned 
meeting,  if  they  find  that  the  benefits  will  exceed  the  probable  cost  of  the 
improvement,  they  enter  an  order  in  writing  in  a  book  kept  by  the  town  clerk, 
called  the  drainage  record,  organizing  the  district.  There  is  a  further  pro- 
vision that  if  two-thirds  of  the  land  owners  owning  more  than  one-half  of 
the  land  in  the  district  desire  to  form  the  district,  even  though  the  cost  will 
exceed  the  benefits,  the  district  may  still  be  organized  by  the  petitioners.  But 
this  provision  has  never  come  before  the  courts  or  been  used  so  far  as  we 
know  and  is  probably  unconstitutional. 

In  special  districts  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  the  commissioners 
appointed  by  the  court  may  employ  a  civil  engineer  and  make  a  report  showing 
specifically  the  kind  of  work  that  should  in  their  opinion  be  done  in  the  dis- 
trict; and  on  the  hearing,  objections  may  be  urged  by  any  land  owner  and 
the  court  finds  whether  the  cost  will  exceed  the  benefits.  If  it  does,  the 
whole  petition  is  dismissed.  If  the  court  finds  that  the  benefits  exceed  the 
cost,  after  hearing  all  objections  to  the  plans  of  the  improvement,  the  court 
organizes  the  district.  There  is  a  special  provision  in  regard  to  organizing 
special  districts  that  even  if  the  cost  exceeds  the  benefits,  providing  the  ma- 
jority in  area  of  the  owners  of  lands  owning  more  than  one-half  the  lands 
will  desire  the  formation  of  the  district,  and  evince  such  desire  by  not  with- 
drawing their  signatures  from  the  petition,  the  court  may  organize  the  dis- 
trict ;  but  as  said  before,  this  provision  is  of  doubtful  validity. 

We  have  now  reviewed  the  provisions  of  both  the  Levee  Act  and  Farm 
Drainage  Act  from  the  appointment  of  the  commissioners  to  the  organization 
of  the  district.  It  will  noted  that  under  both  acts,  the  district  is  organized 
at  an  adjourned  meeting  and  not  at  the  first  meeting,  and  this  is  essential 
to  the  validity  of  the  organization.1 

Under  both  acts,  the  big  question  on  which  the  organization  of  the  dis- 
trict hinges  is  whether  the  probable  cost  will  exceed  the  benefits.  Under  the 
Farm  Drainage  Act,  the  organizing  tribunal  does  not  seem  to  be  required  to 
determine  whether  the  plans  reported  by  the  commissioners  shall  be  the  plans 
of  the  district  for  its  initial  work.  The  organizing  order  in  the  Levee  Act 
does  adopt  those  plans. 

This  would  properly  close  a  discussion  of  the  statutory  provisions  relat- 
ing to  the  organization  of  drainage  districts,  but  there  is  one  other  matter 
that  ought  to  be  treated  at  this  time.     Under  all  of  these  acts,  the  drainage 


iSanner  v.  D.  D.,  175  111.  575. 


242  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

commissioners  have  power  to  enlarge  or  contract  the  boundaries  proposed  in 
the  petition,  and  if  the  boundaries  are  enlarged  by  including  other  lands 
benefited  by  the  proposed  work,  the  same  kind  of  notice  must  be  given  to 
such  land  owners  as  is  given  when  the  petition  itself  is  filed  before  they  can 
be  included  in  the  district  when  it  is  finally  organized. 

But  even  after  the  district  is  organized,  it  may  develop  when  the  drains 
are  installed  that  other  land,  which  has  not  been  included  within  the  district, 
is  getting  substantial  benefit  from  the  work  of  the  district,  or  a  still  stronger 
case  can  be  imagined  where  a  land  owner  outside  the  district  digs  a  ditch 
from  his  own  land  into  the  ditches  of  the  district  or  runs  his  tile  into  the 
ditches  of  the  district.  Such  a  man  gets  all  the  benefit  of  being  included  in 
the  district.  Under  the  Levee  Act  (Section  58)  as  it  now  stands,  if  a  man 
both  connects  his  land  and  is  benefited  by  the  work  of  the  district,  he  is 
deemed  to  have  made  voluntary  application  to  be  included  in  the  district, 
and  the  commissioners  can  make  a  complaint  in  writing  to  the  County  Court 
setting  up  the  facts  and  a  hearing  is  had  after  a  ten-days'  notice  in  writing 
to  the  land  owner;  if  the  allegations  of  the  petition  are  proved,  the  land  is 
annexed  to  the  district.  The  same  proceedings  may  be  had  before  a  justice 
of  the  peace  under  the  Levee  Act,  who  sends  a  transcript  of  his  judgment  to 
the  County  Court.  LTnder  the  Levee  Act,  if  any  owner  of  land  outside  the 
district  petitions  to  have  his  land  brought  into  the  district,  the  commissioners 
may  grant  his  petition  and  include  his  land  if  it  is  involved  in  the  same 
system  of  drainage  and  requires  for  outlet  the  drains  of  the  district.  And 
Section  58a  provides  that  a  number  of  land  owners  outside  the  district  on 
petition  of  as  great  a  proportion  of  the  land  owners  of  the  area  to  be  added 
as  required  for  an  original  district,  can  ask  to  have  a  new  area  involved 
in  the  same  system  of  drainage  attached  to  the  district,  which  petition  is 
heard  by  the  commissioners  only. 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  (Section  42)  if  individual  land  owners 
outside  the  district  connect  their  lands  artificially  with  the  ditches  of  the  dis- 
trict, they  are  deemed  to  have  voluntarily  applied  to  enter  the  district  and 
without  further  notice  their  lands  can  be  attached  by  the  commissioners  and 
assessed  for  their  proportion  of  the  original  cost  of  the  improvement,  as  well 
as  for  future  work;  and  any  land  outside  the  district  which  is* either  bene- 
fited by  or  connected  to  the  district  can  be  annexed  by  the  commissioners  on 
giving  notice  and  having  a  hearing  on  a  petition  made  by  the  commissioners 
setting  forth  the  facts  in  the  County  Court  of  the  county  where  the  district 
was  organized. 

All  land  legally  annexed  to  drainage  districts  under  any  of  the  acts  can 
be  assessed  for  its  part  of  the  original  cost  of  the  improvement  and  is  there- 
after treated  just  like  other  land  within  the  district. 

This  properly  concludes  all  matters  leading  up  to  the  formation  of  the 
drainage  district,  and  its  subsequent  enlargement. 


THE  DRAINAGE    LAWS    OF    ILLINOIS  243 

ADOPTION  OF  PLANS  FOR  WORK  AND  RAISING  OF   MONEY  TO  PAY 
FOR  THE  SAME 

The  first  step  in  all  drainage  districts  after  the  district  is  organized  is 
the  adoption  of  a  plan  for  drainage  work  which  is  usually  suggested  by  a 
competent  engineer.  Both  the  Levee  and  the  Farm  Drainage  Acts  provide 
specifically  that  engineers  may  be  employed  for  this  purpose,  and  when  plans 
are  adopted  and  approved,  the  work  of  the  district  necessarily  involves  the 
taking  of  some  property  in  the  district  for  the  use  of  the  district.  The  taking 
of  this  land  may  be  enforced  by  eminent  domain  proceedings  because  drain- 
age work  under  these  statutes  is  recognized  as  being  a  public  use.1  Provision 
is  made  in  both  acts  that  the  commissioners  shall  if  possible  agree  with  the 
land  owner  upon  a  release  of  right  of  way  and  damages  and  compensation 
for  landowner,  and  cannot  be  set  off  as  a  credit  against  the  benefits  which  he 
must  pay  for  an  assessment.2  Then  the  payment  for  the  work  is  obtained 
by  means  of  assessments  against  the  lands  benefited  by  the  work.  These 
general  features  are  common  to  both  acts,  but  the  particular  methods  of 
working  them  are  widely  different. 

Under  the  Levee  Act,  the  plans  and  specifications  for  the  work  are 
adopted  in  the  same  order  organizing  the  district,  and  therefore  the  district 
starts  out  with  a  definite  initial  plan  of  work.  The  first  thing  the  commis- 
sioners do  is  to  proceed  to  acquire  the  right  of  way  and  release  of  damages 
by  agreement  with  the  land  owners  as  far  as  possible.  They  then  make  out 
an  assessment  roll  in  which  they  set  down  in  proper  columns  the  names  of 
the  owners  of  land  in  the  district,  with  a  description  of  their  lands  by  tracts 
(thus  prohibiting  the  assessing  of  two  or  more  disconnected  tracts  together, 
but  not  limiting  "tract"  to  the  smallest  legal  subdivision),  and  in  separate 
columns,  their  estimate  of  the  damages  to  each  tract  if  any  by  the  work  and 
in  the  other  column  the  commissioners'  estimate  of  the  proportional  part  of 
the  entire  cost  of  the  work  as  compared  with  the  benefits  that  each  tract  will 
receive  when  the  work  is  completed.  To  make  this  a  little  clearer,  the  assess- 
ment of  benefits  against  each  tract  is  arrived  at  by  first  considering  what  the 
total  benefits  to  the  entire  district  would  be ;  then  what  the  total  benefits  to 
each  particular  tract  will  be  from  the  proposed  work  and  then  on  the  same 
ratio,  dividing  the  estimated  cost  of  the  improvement  so  that  each  tract  will 
bear  its  proportionate  part  of  the  cost. 

Likewise  the  damages  which  are  put  in  the  "Damages"  column  may  be 
damages  that  have  been  agreed  upon  by  the  land  owners,  or  in  case  of  failure 
to  agree,  the  commissioners'  estimate  of  what  those  damages  are. 

The  entire  assessment  roll  should  produce  a  sum  of  money  sufficient  to 
pay  the  estimated  cost  of  the  work  plus  the  damages  and  compensations  for 
land  taken.    This  commissioners'  roll  of  assessments,  or  assessment  roll,  as  it 

iC.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R.  v.  Pole  Cat  D.  D.,  213  111.  83. 

2Payson  v.  Peo.,  175  111.  267;    Drainage  Comrs.  v.  Volke,  163  111.   243. 


244  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

is  commonly  called,  is  the  claim  of  the  commissioner  on  behalf  of  the  district 
against  the  lands  of  each  owner  in  the  district.  When  this  assessment  roll  is 
filed  in  the  County  Court,  the  clerk  gives  a  ten  days'  notice  by  publication, 
mailing,  and  posting  of  notices  of  the  time  and  place  where  a  hearing  will 
be  held  and  at  this  hearing  a  jury  is  impanelled  just  like  juries  under  the 
Eminent  Domain  Act.  The  proceeding  is  a  separate  proceeding  as  to  each 
owner  of  land,  but  the  assessment  as  to  all  the  tracts  and  all  the  owners  is 
heard  in  the  one  proceeding.  The  commissioners'  roll  of  assessments  makes 
a  prima  facie  case  for  the  drainage  district  and  the  burden  of  proof  that  it 
is  erroneous  in  its  estimates,  at  least  as  to  benefits,  rests  upon  the  objecting 
land  owners.1  After  all  the  evidence  is  heard  and  the  arguments  of  counsel 
are  heard,  the  court  instructs  the  jury  as  to  what  are  drainage  benefits  and 
damages  for  which  an  assessment  can  be  levied  and  on  the  request  of  any 
land  owner,  the  jury  go  out  and  view  the  lands  of  the  objectors.  If  no  ob- 
jections are  made,  the  assessment  roll  can  be  confirmed  by  the  court.  When 
objections  are  made  and  the  jury  view  the  lands,  they  set  down  their  esti- 
mate of  the  benefits  and  damages  to  each  tract  in  the  same  form  (which  may 
be  furnished  them  by  the  court)  that  the  commissioners  have  used  and  which 
is  known  as  the  verdict  of  the  jury.  The  jury  have  the  right  to  raise  the 
assessment  on  lands  not  objecting  and  to  lower  the  assessment  on  objecting 
lands  or  vice  versa,2  but  their  verdict  should  produce  the  total  amount  of 
assessment  authorized  by  the  court,  unless  the  doing  of  this  would  spread 
assessments  against  any  tracts  larger  than  the  total  benefit  to  any  tract. 
The  fundamental  principle  of  assessments  is  that  no  assessment  against  any 
tract  should  exceed  the  total  amount  of  benefits  to  that  tract  under  any  cir- 
cumstances and  the  assessments  against  each  tract  should  be  strictly  in  pro- 
portion to  the  benefits  derived  by  that  tract  as  compared  with  the  total  bene- 
fits to  the  district. 

The  jury's  verdict  is  made  by  them  and  put  in  shape  by  their  clerk 
elected  from  and  by  the  jury  itself  when  it  first  retires  to  consider  its  verdict, 
and  the  jury  may  be  assisted  by  the  court  in  the  presence  of  the  jury  or  re- 
called after  being  discharged  to  correct  any  errors  or  omissions  in  the  verdict 
(Section  17b).  This  verdict  is  then  confirmed  by  the  court  and  appeals  are 
allowed  to  the  Supreme  Court  by  any  one  or  more  land  owners.  The  re- 
versal on  appeal  as  to  any  one  or  more  tracts  appealing  does  not  affect  the 
assessment  against  the  others. 

Provision  is  made  that  the  assessment  can  be  made  payable  in  install- 
ments, and  that  bonds  up  to  90  per  cent  of  the  assessment  can  be  issued  under 
the  order  of  the  court.  Such  in  general  is  the  method  of  planning  the  original 
work  and  providing  money  to  pay  for  it  under  the  Levee  Act. 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  in  one-  and  two-town  districts,  after 


iLovell  v.  Sny  Island  D.  D.,  159  111.  188  ;    Sny  Island  D.  D.  v.  Shaw,  252  111.  142. 
2Little  Beaver  D.  D.  v.  Livingston,  270  111.  582. 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS    OF   ILLINOIS 


245 


the  first  commissioners  have  organized  the  district,  the  next  step  is  to  elect 
drainage  commissioners  on  the  second  Saturday  of  March  thereafter,  in  an 
election  called  by  the  town  clerk.  Three  commissioners  are  elected  at  the  first 
election,  one  to  serve  for  one  year,  one  for  two  years,  and  one  for  three 
years,  and  annual  elections  are  held  thereafter  to  elect  one  commissioner  a 
year.  Every  adult  land  owner  in  the  district  has  a  vote  and  any  land  owner 
residing  in  the  district  is  eligible  to  the  office  of  commissioner. 

These  elected  commissioners  then  go  upon  the  land  and  determine  upon 
a  system  of  drainage  with  the  assistance  of  an  engineer,  if  needed,  and  they 
make  a  report  in  writing  with  maps,  profiles,  and  estimate  of  cost  of  the 
work  which  is  filed  in  the  clerk's  office  and  recorded  in  the  drainage  record 
(Section  15  to  17).  These  commissioners  then  proceed  to  secure  release 
of  right  of  way  as  far  as  possible  by  agreement  and  when  they  cannot  agree 
upon  the  damages  and  compensation  for  land  taken,  they  file  a  petition  in 
writing  with  a  justice  of  the  peace  asking  him  to  issue  a  venire  for  a  jury 
to  assess  damages,  in  which  proceedings,  service  is  obtained  upon  the  land 
owner  as  in  other  such  cases  before  a  justice  of  the  peace,  and  a  hearing  is 
had  before  the  jurymen  who  go  out  and  look  at  the  land  if  necessary  and 
return  separate  verdicts  as  to  each  owner  of  land.  This  is  like  the  simple 
eminent  domain  justice  of  the  peace  jury  used  in  laying  out  highways.  The 
verdict  of  this  drainage  jury  is  final  and  conclusive  and  no  appeal  is  allowed 
from  it.1  It  will  be  noted  that  this  jury  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter 
of  assessing  benefits,  but  simply  determines  damages  and  compensation  for 
land  taken. 

The  next  step  is  the  assessment  of  benefits  against  each  tract.  This  is 
done  in  all  farm  drainage  districts  by  the  commissioners  making  what  is 
known  as  a  classification  of  all  lands  in  the  district  on  a  scale  of  one  hundred. 
The  tracts  which  will  receive  most  and  about  equal  benefits  are  marked  at  100 
and  those  that  the  commissioners  think  will  receive  less  benefits  are  marked 
at  a  less  number  denoting  their  per  cent  of  benefit.  In  other  words,  a  pro- 
portionate scale  is  arrived  at  in  the  beginning  on  a  percentage  basis.  This 
classification  is  subject  to  change  afterwards  if  the  commissioners  find  from 
experience  and  results  that  it  is  not  fairly  adjusted  on  the  lands. 

When  the  classification  is  made  by  the  commissioners,  notice  is  given 
to  the  land  owners  by  two  weeks'  publication  in  a  newspaper  and  by  posting 
ten  copies  of  the  notice  in  the  district,  stating  the  time  and  place  where  the 
commissioners  will  meet  and  hear  objections  from  the  land  owners  to  the 
classifications.  At  this  hearing,  the  classification  may  be  changed  as  to  any 
tract  by  the  commissioners  or  it  may  be  confirmed  as  it  is  and  any  person 
who  appeared  at  the  classification  meeting  and  urged  objections  can  appeal 
to  the  County  Court  on  giving  bond.     The  appeal  is  heard  there  by  a  jury, 


!Dr.  Commrs.  v.  Harms,  238  111.  415. 


246  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

but  the  jury  on  the  classification  appeal  cannot  raise  the  classification  on  any 
tract  unless  objection  was  made  below  that  the  classification  was  too  low, 
and  cannot  consider  any  classifications  except  those  to  which  objection  was 
made  on  the  hearing  before  the  commissioners.1  When  the  classification 
list  is  finally  confirmed,  either  with  or  without  appeal,  it  establishes  the  ratio 
thereafter  for  the  levying  of  assessments.  In  farm  drainage  districts,  the 
making  of  the  classification  is  the  all-important  part  of  the  assessment,  for 
thereafter  the  commissioners  meet  without  notice  to  the  land  owners  and 
determine  the  amount  of  money  needed  to  pay  for  the  work  and  apportion  it 
among  the  landowners  on  the  basis  of  classification.2 

As  indicated  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  the  commissioners  next  make 
up  a  tax  list,  and  apportion  among  the  land  owners  on  the  basis  of  classifi- 
cation, the  amount  of  the  assessment  needed  to  construct  the  work.  They 
determine  this  amount  by  a  mere  resolution  entered  in  the  drainage  record 
reciting  that  they  need  so  much  money  to  be  raised  by  special  assessment 
upon  the  lands  of  the  district  benefited.  No  notice  is  given  to  the  land  owners 
and  they  must  keep  in  touch  with  the  drainage  records.  An  appeal  is  allowed 
from  this  assessment  on  the  single  question  as  to  whether  the  total  benefits 
to  each  tract  will  be  less  than  the  amount  of  the  assessment,  and  this  is  heard 
in  the  County  Court  before  a  jury.  This  assessment  becomes  a  lien  on  the 
lands  in  the  district  when  a  copy  of  the  tax  list  is  filed  for  record  in  the  office 
of  the  recorder  of  deeds  in  the  county  or  counties  in  which  the  land  lies. 

The  assessment  may  be  made  payable  in  installments  and  bonds  may  be 
issued.  Bonds  of  these  one-  and  two-town  districts  are  not  very  salable  and 
are  not  often  issued. 

So  far  we  have  considered  the  plans  for  work  in  assessment  proceedings 
under  the  Levee  Act  and  under  one-  and  two-town  districts  under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act.  There  yet  remains  consideration  of  the  same  matters  in 
special  districts  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  After  the  special  district  is 
organized,  if  it  contains  fifteen  or  more  landowners,  the  county  clerk  gives 
notices  of  an  election  to  elect  three  drainage  commissioners  at  some  place 
within  the  district  or  at  the  county  clerk's  office.  The  qualications  for  voting 
and  for  holding  office  as  commissioners  are  the  same  as  obtain  in  one- 
and  two-town  districts,  and  the  term  of  office  is  also  the  same,  except  that 
the  annual  election  in  special  districts  takes  place  on  the  third  Tuesday 
in  November. 

In  special  districts  containing  less  than  fifteen  land  owners  the  County 
Court  appoints  the  commissioners  and  fills  vacancies  annually  thereafter  on 
the  last  day  of  the  December  term  of  court,  each  commissioner  serving  for 
a  term  of  three  years. 

In  special  districts,  the  commissioners  go  upon  the  land  and  with  the 


iPeople  v.  Green,  24  2  111.  455. 

2Peo.  v.  Schwank,  2P>7  111.  40;    Peo.  v.  C.  &  I.  T.  Co.,  267  111.  510. 


THE  DRAINAGE    LAWS   OF   ILLINOIS  247 

assistance  of  an  engineer  prepare  plans  and  specifications  for  the  work  and 
secure  the  releases  for  right  of  way  by  agreement,  the  same  as  in  all  other 
districts  which  we  have  thus  far  considered.  When  releases  of  damage  and 
right  of  way  cannot  be  secured  by  agreement,  these  matters  are  adjudicated 
before  an  eminent  domain  jury  in  the  County  Court  after  service  of  process, 
and  there  is  no  provision  expressly  allowing  an  appeal  or  making  the  action 
of  that  jury  final. 

When  all  cases  of  damages  are  out  of  the  way,  classification  is  made  by 
the  commissioners  of  special  districts  just  as  in  the  other  farm  drainage  dis- 
tricts, and  after  the  classification,  the  commissioners  make  an  assessment 
just  as  in  other  farm  drainage  districts,  except  that  they  also  make  out  a 
certificate  stating  the  amount  required  by  them  to  be  levied  as  a  special  assess- 
ment, which  is  filed  with  the  clerk,  and  he  computes  and  apportions  the 
amount  thus  levied  among  the  lands  in  the  district  according  to  the  classifica- 
tion. A  copy  of  this  tax  list  is  filed  for  record  in  the  office  of  the  recorders 
of  counties  other  than  the  county  in  which  the  district  was  organized.  Except 
for  the  matter  of  the  certificate  of  levy,  as  it  is  called,  the  assessment  pro- 
ceedings are  substantially  the  same  as  in  the  one-  and  two-town  districts. 

We  have  now  considered  proceedings  in  all  the  different  kinds  of  dis- 
tricts down  through  the  levying  of  the  assessments.  This  section  can  prop- 
erly be  closed  by  consideration  at  this  point  of  the  provisions  for  collecting 
the  assessments  in  case  they  are  not  paid  voluntarily  by  the  land  owner. 

Under  the  Levee  Act,  the  assessments  become  a  lien  and  draw  interest 
at  six  per  cent  from  the  time  of  confirmation  until  paid  and  the  treasurer  of 
the  drainage  district  who  is  appointed  by  the  commissioners  and  who  gives 
bond,  enters  in  his  treasurer's  record  book  the  amount  of  principal  and  in- 
terest due  from  each  land  owner  on  each  installment.  When  the  verdict  of 
the  jury  has  been  filed  and  confirmed,  a  certified  copy  of  the  assessment  roll 
is  made  by  the  clerk  of  the  court  and  sent  to  the  treasurer  of  the  drainage 
district  who  publishes  a  notice  for  three  weeks  in  the  paper  that  the  assess- 
ment is  due.  If  the  assessment  is  not  paid  by  March  10th  thereafter,  the 
drainage  treasurer  returns  a  delinquent  list  showing  the  names  of  the  land 
owners,  a  description  of  their  lands  and  the  amount  delinquent,  to  the  col- 
lector of  taxes  of  the  county  in  which  the  land  lies,  and  he  puts  these  de- 
linquent amounts  on  his  tax  records  and  collects  them  with  the  other  taxes. 
If  they  are  not  paid  to  the  tax  collector,  he  applies  for  judgment  against  the 
lands  in  June  just  as  in  the  case  of  any  other  taxes. 

It  would  take  too  long  to  go  into  the  nice  distinctions  that  are  made  as 
to  what  objections  can  be  urged  on  the  application  of  the  tax  collector  for  a 
judgment  for  delinquent  drainage  assessments.  This  general  statement  is 
true  as  to  assessments  under  the  Levee  Act  in  that  connection  An  objection 
to  a  drainage  assessment  in  tax  proceedings  is  a  collateral  attack  upon  the 
judgment  of  the  County  Court  confirming  the  assessment  and  if  the  County 


248  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

Court  had  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter  and  of  the  person  of  the  objector, 
mere  errors  in  its  judgment  cannot  be  raised  as  an  objection  to  the  tax  pro- 
ceedings. Thus  no  objection  can  be  made  that  the  amount  of  the  assessment 
is  greater  than  the  benefits  to  the  land,  or  that  it  is  out  of  proportion  to  other 
assessments.  No  objections  to  the  kind  and  character  of  the  work  to  be 
done  in  the  district  can  be  offered  on  tax  objections  under  the  Levee  Act, 
and  an  attack  upon  the  validity  of  the  organization  of  the  district,  which  does 
not  go  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  cannot  be  raised.1 

But  if  in  the  assessment  proceedings  or  in  the  proceedings  organizing 
the  district  a  land  owner  was  not  properly  notified  of  the  proceedings  and  did 
not  appear  and  object  to  them  and  the  court  therefore  had  no  jurisdiction 
over  his  person,  he  may  come  in  on  tax  objections  and  object  to  the  assess- 
ment and  defeat  it.2 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  the  commissioners  by  their  resolution 
( fix  the  time  when  the  assessment  shall  be  clue  and  if  no  time  is  fixed,  it  be- 
comes due  thirty  days  after  confirmation  and  draws  interest  until  it  is  paid. 
The  commissioners  then  file  a  copy  of  their  tax  list  with  the  treasurer  (who 
is  the  supervisor  of  the  town  usually)  and  who  executes  bond.  He  keeps 
the  record  of  the  assessments  and  although  no  provision  is  made  by  law  for 
notice  to  the  land  owners  of  the  amount  of  their  assessment,  it  is  customary 
for  the  treasurer  to  mail  a  notice  to  each  land  owner.  If  the  assessments 
are  not  paid  by  March  10th  following,  a  delinquent  list  is  sent  to  the  tax 
collector  and  the  same  proceedings  are  had  as  in  the  case  of  other  delinquent 
taxes.  In  special  districts,  the  county  treasurer  is  the  treasurer  of  the 
drainage  district. 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  there  is  an  important  difference  in  the 
questions  that  can  be  raised  on  application  for  judgment  for  delinquent  drain- 
age assessments.  Since  the  entire  matter  of  assessment  in  farm  drainage 
districts  is  heard  before  the  drainage  commissioners  and  not  before  a  court, 
and  since  probably  there  is  no  notice  of  the  making  of  the  assessment,  from 
which  an  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  County  Court  (although  this  last  question 
has  not  yet  been  passed  on  by  the  courts),  our  Supreme  Court  has  held  that 
on  application  of  the  collector  for  judgment,  any  land  owner  can  show  that 
his  land  has  been  assessed  more  than  it  will  be  benefited  by  the  work.  The 
question  of  the  proportion  of  benefits  is  not  open  because  notice  of  the  classi- 
fication hearing  is  given  to  the  land  owners  and  an  appeal  is  allowed  to  the 
County  Court.  But  the  question  of  whether  total  benefits  are  less  than  the 
assessment  is  open  to  him.3  Moreover  many  mere  irregularities  in  doing 
the  work  of  the  district  for  which  money  has  been  expended  and  for  which 
an  assessment  has  been  levied  can  be  raised  on  tax  objections  in  the  farm 
drainage  districts.     For  instance,  that  the  assessment  is  levied  to  pay  for 


iPeo.  v.  Boyd,  256  111.  9  ;    Osborn  v.  People,  103  111.  224. 

2Payson  v.  Peo.,  175  111.  267. 

3See  People  v.  Carr,  231  111.  502  ;  People  v.  Garner,  267  111.  396. 


THE  DRAINAGE    LAWS    OF   ILLINOIS  249 

work  let  out  on  a  contract  without  proper  notice  (as  hereafter  explained^ 
defeats  the  assessment1  and  it  is  a  good  tax  objection  that  the  assessment 
was  levied  to  pay  for  an  indebtedness  incurred  before  levying  the  assess- 
ment.2 If  the  meeting  to  make  the  classification  was  held  outside  of  the 
drainage  district,  or  if  the  assessment  meeting  was  held  outside  the  drainage 
district,  as  well  as  outside  the  town  clerk's  office,  the  assessment  is  void  and 
can  be  attacked  in  tax  proceedings.  Many  other  matters  which  it  would  take 
too  long  to  detail  can  be  raised  at  this  stage  which  is  sometimes  more  than 
a  year  after  the  assessment  has  been  levied  and  after  the  work  has  been  done 
on  the  faith  of  it.  Later  some  of  these  other  matters  will  be  pointed  out 
and  their  disadvantages  will  be  discussed. 

CONSTRUCTION   OF  WORK 

We  have  now  considered  drainage  districts  from  their  formation  down 
through  the  planning  of  the  work  and  the  provisions  for  getting  the  money 
to  pay  for  the  same,  and  are  now  ready  to  take  up  the  actual  method  of 
building  the  drainage  improvements.  They  will  be  discussed  under  three 
heads : 

1.  Contracts  for  the  work. 

2.  Providing  additional  funds  or  additional  assessments. 

3.  Change  in  original  plans. 

1.      CONTRACTS   FOR  THE   WORK 

Under  the  Levee  Act  (Section  36)  the  commissioners  may  at  any  time 
make  contracts  for  surveying  and  making  additional  plans,  but  as  in  the  Farm 
Drainage  Acts,  all  contracts  involving  over  five  hundred  dollars  must  be  let 
only  after  notice  is  published  in  a  newspaper,  stating  the  time  and  place, 
when  and  where  sealed  bids  will  be  opened,  and  stating  the  kind  of  work  to 
be  let  and  the  terms  of  payment.  The  commissioners  may  continue  the 
letting  and  reject  any  or  all  bids.  Commissioners  are  prohibited  from  being 
interested  in  any  contract. 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  (Section  35)  twenty  days'  notice  in  a 
newspaper  is  required  when  the  work  costs  over  five  hundred  dollars  and 
the  bidding  is  let  by  sealed  bid.  The  commissioners  can  not  be  interested 
during  their  term  of  office  in  any  contract,  and  provision  is  made  that  if 
any  landowner  in  the  district  assessed,  contracts  to  do  any  work  and  the 
work  is  done  according  to  the  contract  the  commissioners  may  credit  the 
amount  of  assessment  due  from  him  with  the  work  performed  by  him. 
Compensation  for  right  of  way  taken  must  be  paid  in  cash  but  damages  to 
land  not  taken  can  be  offset  against  the  assessment. 

There  is  one  important  limitation  not  stated  expressly  in  the  statute  but 
read  into  it  by  construction  by  the  Supreme  Court  and  that  is  that  no  con- 

iRogne  v.  People,  224  111.  449. 
2People  v.  Kuns,  248  111.  42. 


250  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

tract  can  be  let  for  the  work  of  constructing  the  drainage  improvement  for 
an  amount  in  excess  of  the  assessments  then  levied  to  pay  for  it.  In  other 
words,  an  indebtedness  for  the  construction  of  the  work  of  the  drainage 
district  can  not  be  created  in  advance  and  an  assessment  afterwards  levied 
to  pay  for  it.1  And  this  probably  remains  true  even  under  the  1915  amend- 
ment to  Section  37  of  the  Levee  Act  providing  that  an  additional  assessment 
can  be  levied  to  pay  obligations  incurred  for  the  completion  of  any  part  *)f 
the  work  of  the  district  as  originally  planned  and  contracted  for  and  already 
begun  within  any  drainage  district.  That  amendment  refers  to  a  case  where 
the  district  at  the  time  the  contract  was  let  had  sufficient  funds  levied  and 
not  then  used  to  pay  for  the  work  but  thereafter  because  part  of  this  money 
was  used  for  other  legitimate  purposes  not  enough  was  left  to  pay  for  the 
completion  of  the  work  and  in  such  case  that  amendment  was  passed  to 
make  clear  that  the  contractor  could  go  ahead  and  complete  his  contract  and 
compel  the  levying  of  an  additional  assessment  to  pay  for  the  balance  due 
him.  Before  this  amendment,  according  to  the  dicta  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
whenever  the  funds  on  hand  in  a  drainage  district  were  exhausted  all  work 
on  contracts  had  to  stop.2 

The  contracts  for  the  construction  of  drainage  improvements  must  be 
differentiated  from  contracts  covering  what  are  loosely  called  the  current 
expenses  of  a  drainage  district.  These  current  expenses  or  running  expenses 
include  the  court  costs  in  levying  assessments,  the  payment  of  commissioners' 
fees  and  of  attorneys'  fees  and  even  the  having  of  plans  and  maps  made  for 
additional  work  needed.  Indebtedness  for  these  current  expenses  can  be 
incurred  even  when  there  are  no  funds  on  hand  to  pay  for  the  same.  The 
exception  is  carved  out  in  their  case  because  of  the  inherent  necessity  of  the 
situation.  When  the  district  runs  out  of  funds,  if  the  commissioners  were 
without  power  to  contract  for  the  services  of  attorneys  or  if  the  commision- 
ers  could  receive  no  compensation  for  their  time  in  preparing  to  levy  an 
additional  assessment  or  if  engineers  could  not  be  hired  to  make  plans  for 
new  work  for  which  additional  assessment  was  to  be  levied,  the  whole  pur- 
pose of  the  law  would  be  defeated.     So  much  for  the  question  of  contracts. 

2.       ADDITIONAL    ASSESSMENTS 

It  very  often  happens  that  the  first  assessment  in  a  district  is  insufficient 
to  pay  for  all  of  the  expenses  that  the  district  has  to  incur.  Lawsuits  arise 
which  must  be  compromised,  freight  rates  increase,  or  the  price  of  material 
goes  up,  and  in  such  case  more  money  must  be  raised  by  assessment.  Under 
the  Levee  Act  (Section  37)  either  on  petition  of  a  majority  of  the  land 
owners  owning  one-third  in  area  of  the  land,  etc.,  or  the  converse  majority, 
or  on  petition  of  the  commissioners  of  the  district  without  any  action  by  the 
land  owners,  accompanied  in  the  latter  case  by  a  verified  statement  of  their 


iWinkleman  v.  Dr.  D.,  170  111.  27. 
2Spring  Creek  Drainage  District  v.  E.  J.  &  E.  Ry.  Co.,   249  111.  260. 


THE   DRAINAGE    LAWS    OF    ILLINOIS  251 

receipts  and  expenditures  and  showing  in  either  case  that  the  original  amount 
assessed  has  been  inadequate  to  complete  the  work  as  originally  planned  or 
that  other  new  and  additional  work  needs  to  be  done  in  the  district  or  that 
money  is  needed  to  pay  for  current  expenses  that  have  accrued,  or  is  needed 
for  other  lawful  purposes,  the  court  causes  a  two  weeks'  notice  of  the  hear- 
ing on  this  petition  to  be  given  and  at  this  hearing  the  court  determines 
whether  any  more  money  should  be  raised  and  for  what  purposes,  and  orders 
an  assessment  levied.  The  commissioners  than  make  out  an  assessment 
roll  and  the  same  proceedings  are  had  as  in  the  case  of  the  original  assess- 
ments in  levee  districts. 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  in  all  three  classes  of  districts,  if  the 
commissioners  find  that  the  assessment  levied  will  be  inadequate  to  com- 
plete the  proposed  work,  they  may  make  additional  levies  upon  the  old  classi- 
fication without  any  further  notice.  And  in  case  any  new  or  additional  work 
is  to  be  done,  they  may  make  an  additional  assessment  upon  the  old  classi- 
fication if  it  fairly  adjusts  the  benefits  from  the  new  work.  But  the  dicta  of 
the  court  are  to  the  effect  that  whenever  new  work  is  to  be  done  a  new 
classification  is  to  be  made.1 

No  notice  is  given  to  the  land  owners  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act 
but  an  appeal  from  the  assessment  will  lie.  The  matter  of  whether  an  addi- 
tional assessment  can  be  levied  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  to  pay  current 
expenses  does  not  seem  to  have  come  before  the  courts,  but  on  principle  they 
should  have  implied  authority  to  do  so.  This  ought  to  be  made  clear  by 
express  enactment. 

Additional  assessments  are  subject  to  the  fundamental  limitation  that 
they  must  not  exceed  the  benefits  to  the  land  from  the  improvement  and  in 
determining  whether  land  has  paid  for  all  the  benefits  it  will  receive,  the 
original  and  all  other  assessments  should  be  added  together  with  the  addi- 
tional assessment  and  compared  with  the  total  benefits  to  each  tract  from 
the  work  in  the  district.2  But  on  an  additional  assessment  hearing  former 
assessments  cannot  be  considered  to  adjust  inequalities  in  the  proportionate 
distribution  of  former  assessments.3 

3.      CHANGE    IN*  ORIGINAL    PLANS 

Not  only  do  the  original  calculations  of  the  commissioners  as  to  the 
amount  of  money  needed  often  prove  erroneous,  but  the  original  plans  con- 
firmed by  the  court  often  prove  inadequate  to  give  complete  drainage  to  a 
district.  In  all  districts,  under  both  acts,  the  duty  resting  upon  the  drainage 
commissioners  to  afford  main  outlets  of  ample  capacity  to  drain  the  district, 
is  mandatory  and  it  is  no  defense  to  the  commissioners  in  an  action  of  man- 


iPeople  v.  McDougal,  205  111.  637;    Reynolds  v.  Milk  Grove  Dr.  D.,  134  111.  268. 

2Dr.   Comrs.   v.   Kelsev,    120   111.    482. 

SLovell  v.  Sny  Island  Dr.  D.,  159  111.  188;  Freeson  v.  Scott  County  Comrs.,  283   111.  536. 


252  LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

damus  to  compel  them  to  construct  adequate  drains,  that  the  drains  asked 
for  were  not  included  in  the  original  plans  and  specifications  approved  by 
the  court  at  organization.1 

Under  the  Levee  Act  (Section  37  and  Section  44a)  the  commissioners 
are  expressly  authorized  to  change  the  original  plans  with  the  consent  of  the 
court  and  to  provide  for  new  and  additional  work  in  drainage  districts  and 
levy  assessments  to  pay  for  the  same.  The  assessments  for  this  new  and 
additional  work,  however,  should  be  apportioned  among  the  land  owners  on 
the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  new  and  additional  work,  leaving  out  of 
consideration  entirely  the  old  work  originally  done  in  the  drainage  district2 

We  are  now  discussing  the  question  of  the  construction  of  new  work. 
not  the  maintenance  of  the  old  work.  Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  (Sec- 
tion 41)  the  express  mandatory  duty  is  imposed  upon  commissioners  to 
provide  main  outlets  of  ample  capacity  for  the  water  of  a  district  including 
future  needs  as  well  as  the  present,  and  under  Section  41  the  commissioners 
are  empowered,  in  case  they  find  that  there  has  been  an  error  in  locating  or 
constructing  the  ditches  or  that  for  other  causes  lands  are  not  drained  or 
protected  as  contemplated,  to  use  the  corporate  funds  of  the  district  to  carry 
out  the  original  purpose  to  afford  all  lands  complete  drainage  as  far  as 
practicable. 

Under  both  acts,  they  are  authorized  to  go  outside  and  below  the  dis- 
tricts to  provide  an  outlet  and  are  given  powers  of  eminent  domain  for  that 
purpose.  There  is  no  particular  difference  in  the  powers  of  the  two  districts 
in  this  respect.  The  differences  in  the  acts  relate  mainly  to  the  method  of 
raising  the  money  to  pay  for  the  same. 

MAINTENANCE 

We  have  considered  thus  far  the  provisions  of  the  law  relating  to  the 
organization  of  districts  and  to  all  steps  through  the  original  construction  of 
the  new  work.  The  next  step  is  the  matter  of  maintenance  of  drainage 
improvements  after  they  have  been  originally  constructed. 

Under  the  Levee  Act  elaborate  provisions  are  made  at  the  outset  for 
keeping  up  the  work  after  it  is  constructed.  Before  the  district  is  organized, 
the  commissioners  are  required  to  report  the  probable  annual  cost  of  keep- 
ing the  improvement  in  repair  after  the  work  is  completed  (Section  9).  At 
the  time  of  the  first  assessment  the  court  may  direct  the  commissioners  to 
make  an  assessment  of  the  annual  amount  of  benefits  which  each  tract  will 
sustain  by  keeping  the  levees,  ditches  and  other  work  in  repair  and  to  main- 
tain in  operation  pumping  plants  if  there  are  any  in  the  district  (Section  17), 
and  the  first  assessment  jury  in  their  verdict  may  find  the  annual  amount  of 
benefits  which  the  land  will  sustain  by  keeping  the  work  in  repair.  Section 
17*^  provides  that  the  annual  amount  for  keeping  said  levee  or  ditch  in 


iBinder  v.  Langhorst,  234  111.  583  ;  Peotone  Dr.  D.  v.  Adams,  163  111.  428. 
^Inlet  Drainage  District  v.  Anderson,  257  111.  214. 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS    OF   ILLINOIS  253 

repair,  shall  not  in  the  aggregate,  amount  to  a  sum  in  any  one  year,  greater 
than  would  be  produced  by  thirty  cents  per  acre  on  all  lands  within  said 
district,  but  there  is  no  limitation  on  the  amount  of  annual  benefits  which 
can  be  assessed  to  pay  for  keeping  a  pumping  plant  in  repair  except  the  fun- 
damental limitation  that  it  must  not  exceed  total  benefits  to  the  land. 

Section  26^2  provides  that  the  annual  amount  of  benefits  for  keeping  the 
work  in  repair  shall  be  due  and  payable  on  September  1st  annually  and  shall 
be  a  lien  on  the  lands  from  and  after  the  confirmation  of  the  report.  The 
commissioners  are  required  to  report  on  the.  condition  of  the  work  at  the 
July  Term  of  the  County  Court  and  submit  their  estimate  of  the  amount 
necessary  to  keep  the  work  in  repair  and  pay  incidental  expenses  for  the 
ensuing  year  together  with  any  estimated  expense  for  completing  any  work, 
and  the  court  enters  an  order  without  notice  to  the  land  owners  after  hearing 
this  report,  fixing  the  amount  of  the  annual  benefits  for  the  ensuing  year, 
which  are  collected  just  like  any  other  drainage  assessment.  If  thirty  cents 
per  acre  is  not  needed,  the  amount  is  scaled  down  but  the  assessment  for  any 
one  year  cannot  go  over  that  amount  except  as  before  stated  for  pumping 
plants.  If  the  commissioners  run  out  of  money  because  of  an  insufficient 
estimate  of  annual  benefits  and  if  the  court  has  remitted  some  part  of  the 
full  assessment  of  annual  benefits  originally  levied,  the  commissioners  may 
borrow  on  anticipation  warrants  against  the  next  year's  assessment  of  annual 
benefits. 

No  provision  seems  to  be  made  anywhere  for  determining  when  the 
amounts  of  these  annual  benefits  added  together  exceed  the  total  benefits 
from  the  work  unless  that  question  is  determined  when  the  jury  fixed  the 
amount  at  the  time  of  the  assessment. 

If  the  amount  of  annual  benefits  is  not  made  at  the  time  of  the  original 
assessment  it  can  be  made  at  any  time  thereafter  under  Section  37.  If  this 
levy  of  annual  benefits  is  intelligently  made,  the  expensive  procedure  entailed 
by  additional  assessments  can  be  avoided. 

Turning  now  to  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  the  provisions  for  maintenance 
are  found  under  Section  41  which  apparently  applies  to  all  kinds  of  districts 
under  that  act,  and  Section  70  which  applies  only  to  special  districts.  Section 
41  provides  that  after  the  completion  of  the  work,  the  commissioners  shall 
keep  the  same  in  repair  and  that  if  sufficient  funds  are  not  on  hand  the  com- 
missioners shall  make  a  new  tax  levy.  This  work  is  done  on  the  old  classifi- 
cation unless  the  commissioners  find  that  the  old  classification  is  not  properly 
adjusted  when  they  make  a  new  one.  It  is  merely  a  matter  of  the  passing  of 
a  resolution  by  the  commissioners,  but  is  subject  to  the  danger  that  in  tax 
proceedings  the  court  may  decide  that  the  benefits  have  all  been  previously 
paid  for  and  that  thereafter  against  a  particular  piece  of  land  it  must  cease. 

Section  70  applying  to  Farm  Drainage  Districts  provides  that  the  com- 
missioners on  or  before  December  first  of  each  vear  shall  file  a  statement  of 


254  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

the  evidences  of  indebtedness  outstanding  with  other  data  in  relation  thereto 
and  the  amount  necessary  to  be  levied  on  the  lands  to  keep  the  work  of  any 
part  thereof  in  repair  for  the  year  next  ensuing  together  with  certain  other 
matters  not  connected  with  maintenance  and  the  clerk  of  the  district  then 
spreads  an  assessment  on  the  old  classification  and  certifies  a  copy  of  it  to 
the  county  clerks  of  other  counties  in  which  the  district  may  embrace  land, 
and  the  assessment  is  collected  just  like  other  assessments  in  special  farm 
drainage  districts.  Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  under  Section  70  the 
certificate  of  levy  provided  for,  includes  several  distinct  kinds  of  items  and 
these  must  be  certified  separately  and  not  in  a  lump  sum  or  else  the  whole 
will  be  void.1 

The  question  has  never  yet  arisen  so  far  as  we  can  find  whether  when 
the  aggregate  of  all  assessments  equals  or  exceeds  the  benefits  to  land,  an 
assessment  can  thereafter  be  levied  for  maintenance  of  the  ditch,  but  as  the 
authority  of  all  drainage  districts  to  levy  assessments  is  limited  by  the  Con- 
stitution to  benefits  conferred  by  them  it  would  seem  that  an  assessment 
even  for  maintenance  could  not  be  levied  in  such  a  case. 

ABANDONMENT   AND  DISSOLUTION   OF  DRAINAGE  DISTRICT 

A  drainage  district  does  not  forfeit  its  corporate  powers  by  a  mere  non- 
use  of  them.  It  remains  a  district,  a  quasi-municipal  corporation,  even  though 
no  commissioners  are  chosen  for  many  years,  until  dissolved  by  order  of 
court  in  quo  warranto  or  by  operation  of  the  statute.2 

Both  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  and  the  Levee  Act  contain  separate  pro- 
visions providing  for  the  dissolution  of  districts  organized  under  those  re- 
spective acts  only,  and  in  addition  to  these  provisions  there  is  an  independent 
act  approved  June  4,  1889,  in  force  July  1,  1889,  providing  for  dissolution 
of  districts  organized  under  any  act.  This  independent  act  provides  that 
upon  a  verified  petition  praying  such  dissolution  signed  by  not  less  than 
four-fifths  of  the  adult  landowners  of  the  district  who  own  in  the  aggregate 
not  less  than  three-fourths  of  the  area  of  the  assessed  land  thereof,  after 
six  weeks'  notice  by  publication  and  posting,  and  on  a  showing  that  no  in- 
debtedness of  the  district  exists,  can  be  dissolved  by  the  County  Court  of 
the  county  where  the  district  was  organized.  The  drainage  improvements 
of  dissolved  districts  remain  for  common  use  of  the  landowners,  and  the 
other  property  of  the  district,  if  there  is  any,  is  sold  by  the  order  of  the 
County  Court  directed  to  the  master-in-chancery  of  the  county,  and  the  pro- 
ceeds of  sale  after  the  payment  of  costs  are  turned  over  to  the  county 
treasurer  to  pay  any  indebtedness  and  (inferentially)  to  rebate  the  balance 
among  the  landowners  in  proportion  to  the  last  assessment. 

Under  the  Levee  Act  (Section  44  as  amended  in  1919)  provision  is  first 


iPeo.  v.  Glenn,  207  111.  HO  ;    Peo.  v.  Garner,  267  111.  396;    Peo.  v.  Peeples,  291  111.  537. 
2People  v.  Niebrugge,   244  111.  82. 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS    OF   ILLINOIS  255 

made  on  a  petition  of  a  majority  of  the  landowners  representing  one-third 
of  the  area  for  the  County  Court,  to  order  the  commissioners  to  abandon 
particular  drains  or  ditches  within  the  district  before  the  contract  for  them 
is  let,  and,  if  assessments  have  already  been  levied,  to  rebate  the  equitable 
part  of  such  assessment  rendered  unnecessary  by  the  abandonment  of  the 
particular  drains. 

Then  the  section  provides  that  at  any  time  before  the  contract  for  the 
construction  of  the  work  has  been  made,  a  majority  in  number  of  the  land- 
owners owning  more  than  one-half  in  area  of  the  lands  in  the  district  may 
petition  the  court  to  abandon  the  whole  system  of  work  and  abolish  the  dis- 
trict and  thereupon  "the  court  shall  enter  upon  its  record  an  order  granting 
the  prayer  of  such  petition  upon  condition  that  the  petitioner  pay  all  court 
costs  within  thirty  days  from  the  rendition  of  such  order."  If  the  costs  are 
not  paid  within  thirty  days  the  order  is  of  no  force  and  effect.  If  the  dis- 
trict is  abolished  under  this  section,  assessments  are  refunded  to  the  persons 
who  paid  them.  It  will  be  noted  that  it  is  not  a  condition  precedent  to  the 
dissolution  of  a  district  under  this  act  that  the  petitioners  should  be  required 
to  pay  anything  except  court  costs  which  do  not  include  attorneys'  fees,  com- 
missioners' fees,  engineers'  expenses  and  other  current  expenses  of  the  dis- 
trict, which  might  be  very  considerable  and  might  well  be  incurred  after 
the  organization  of  the  district  and  before  the  letting  of  a  contract  for  work. 
In  the  case  of  Deneen  v.  Deneen,  293  111.  454,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that 
this  section  did  not  apply  to  districts  organized  before  July  1,  1919,  but  left 
the  question  open  as  to  whether  the  law  was  constitutional  if  attempted  to 
be  applied  to  districts  organized  after  that  time 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  (Section  47 j4)  whenever  two-thirds  of 
the  owners  of  the  land  owning  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  all  the  lands 
within  any  district  lying  wholly  within  the  limits  of  a  single  town,  shall  pre- 
sent a  petition  to  the  commissioners  asking  that  the  organization  shall  be 
dissolved  and  showing  the  debts  have  all  been  paid  and  that  no  litigation  is 
pending  against  the  district,  the  commissioners  shall  endorse  upon  the  peti- 
tion an  order  dissolving  the  district,  which  is  filed  in  the  office  of  the  town 
clerk  and  by  him  recorded  in  the  drainage  record,  and  the  district  is  then 
dissolved  with  a  proviso  that  within  a  year  the  same  number  of  landowners 
may  petition  to  have  the  district  restored  and  if  such  petition  is  made  and 
entered  upon  the  drainage  record,  the  district  is  again  restored.  No  provision 
seems  to  be  made  in  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  for  the  dissolution  of  two-town 
or  union  districts  and  special  drainage  districts,  which  therefore  can  only  be 
dissolved  under  the  Independent  Act  of  1889. 

MISCELLANEOUS  POWERS:    DUTIES  AND  SUCCESSION   OF  COMMISSIONERS 

In  the  above  statement  of  the  various  statutory  steps  in  organizing  a  dis- 
trict, raising  money,  planning  and  building  drainage  improvements,  maintain- 


256  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

ing  them,  and  dissolving  the  district,  we  have  necessarily  omitted  a  great 
many  important  doctrines  in  regard  to  the  powers  of  drainage  districts  and 
of  commissioners  which  will  be  here  grouped  in  separate  discussions  apply- 
ing first  to  the  Levee  Act  and  then  to  the  Farm  Drainage  Act. 

Before  the  constitutional  amendment  of  1878  (Article  IV,  Section  31) 
was  passed,  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Updike  v.  Wright,  81  111.  49, 
held  that  there  was  no  legislative  power  to  organize  a  drainage  district  which 
could  build  or  maintain  levees  or  which  could  raise  funds  by  special  assess- 
ment under  the  act  of  1871.  A  number  of  drainage  districts  had  been  formed 
under  this  act  and  had  done  considerable  work  and  after  the  constitutional 
amendment  when  the  Levee  Act  was  passed,  frequent  references  wTere  made 
and  are  still  found  in  that  act  to  drains  or  ditches  "heretofore  constructed 
under  any  law  of  this  State."  These  references  and  the  special  procedure 
in  reference  to  such  districts  all  relate  to  these  old  illegal  districts. 

The  proceedings  of  the  commissioners  under  the  Levee  Act  are  kept  in 
a  book  called  the  drainage  record.  But  inasmuch  as  most  of  the  proceedings 
in  Levee  Act  districts  are  matters  of  record  in  the  courts,  the  keeping  and 
the  contents  of  this  drainage  record  are  not  so  important  as  the  keeping  of 
records  in  Farm  Drainage  Districts  (Section  47). 

The  commissioners  in  Levee  Act  Districts  hold  meetings  on  the  first 
Tuesday  of  March,  May,  July,  and  September  of  each  year  or  oftener,  if 
necessary,  and  they  are  required  to  make  brief  memoranda  in  the  drainage 
record  of  all  their  transactions  concerning  the  district.  They  are  required  to 
keep  a  record  of  the  bonds  that  have  been  issued  and  sold,  showing  whether 
they  are  a  lien  upon  any  particular  installment  of  assessments  or  a  general 
lien  on  all;  what  contracts  have  been  let  on  any  section  or  division  of  the 
work;  all  orders  issued  on  the  treasurer;  all  material  or  tools  purchased; 
warrants  for  services  of  a  commissioner  issued  by  the  clerk ;  all  sums  paid  by 
order  for  work  done;  and  in  general  they  are  required  to  keep  an  accurate 
and  complete  account  of  their  financial  dealings  on  behalf  of  the  district. 

Under  Section  41  the  commissioners  are  required  to  report  as  often  as 
once  a  year  to  the  County  Court  the  amount  of  money  collected  by  them  and 
the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  spent  and  upon  filing  the  report  the  court 
sets  a  time  not  exceeding  three  weeks  from  the  filing  when  the  report  is  heard 
and  the  commissioners  must  give  ten  days'  notice  of  the  hearing  by  placing 
notices  in  four  public  places  in  the  district  and  one  on  the  door  of  the  court 
house,  and  the  court  on  hearing  may  require  evidence  from  the  commissioners 
that  the  report  is  correct,  although  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  when 
objections  are  made  to  the  report  it  shall  be  taken  as  prima  facie  correct  and 
the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  objector.1 

Commissioners  under  the  Levee  Act  may  hold  all  meetings  any  place  in 
the  county  or  counties  in  which  the  district  is  located  and  they  are  paid  three 

iHunt,  Drainage  District  v.  Cole,  283  111.  105. 


THE  DRAINAGE  LAWS  OF  ILLINOIS  257 

dollars  a  day  and  their  necessary  expenses  for  each  day  actually  engaged  in 
official  duties,  and  in  districts  having  an  area  of  more  than  seventy-five  thou- 
sand acres,  commissioners  receive  four  dollars  a  day  and  their  expenses.  They 
report  to  the  court  their  claims  for  compensation  and  only  when  this  report 
is  approved  by  the  court  and  certified  to  the  drainage  treasurer  can  they 
draw  an  order  on  the  treasurer  for  their  compensation  (Section  42). 

Under  the  Levee  Act  drainage  commissioners  are  never  elected  except 
in  mutual  districts.  The  County  Court  on  the  first  Monday  in  September 
after  the  district  is  organized  appoints  three  commissioners,  one  to  serve  for 
one  year,  one  for  two  years,  and  one  for  three  years,  and  on  the  first  of  Sep- 
tember of  each  year  after  this,  the  court  appoints  a  successor  to  the  man  whose 
term  has  expired.  The  landowners  representing  a  majority  of  the  acreage 
embraced  in  the  district  may  petition  for  any  such  successor  and  the  court 
is  bound  to  appoint  such  nominee  if  the  petition  is  filed  on  or  before  Septem- 
ber first.  In  case  the  petition  is  not  filed,  the  court  within  ten  days  after  Sep- 
tember first  appoints  any  suitable  person  as  commissioner  of  the  district  and 
provision  is  made  that  after  all  the  drainage  improvement  work  as  originally 
constructed  for  which  the  district  is  organized,  the  court  may  on  petition  of 
the  majority  of  the  landowners  dispense  with  two  commissioners  and  appoint 
but  one  commissioner  to  act  for  the  district  until  additional  work  is  needed 
to  be  done  in  the  district  when  the  old  three-commissioner  system  is  restored 
(Section  62).  The  court  may  remove  any  commissioner  appointed  by  it  and 
appoint  another  in  his  place  or  fill  any  vacancy  (Section  40). 

Each  commissioner  must  give  bond  in  a  sum  not  less  than  twice  the 
amount  of  assessments  of  benefits  payable  in  any  one  year  or  that  may  come 
into  their  hands  and  control  during  one  year,  with  security  to  be  approved 
by  the  court  (Section  32). 

Section  63  provides  for  a  special  oath  by  commissioners  to  make  assess- 
ments, but  this  is  repealed  by  implication  when  assessments  are  made  by  an 
eminent  domain  jury  as  is  now  the  case  instead  of  by  the  commissioners  as 
under  the  old  law  of  1885  which  was  held  unconstitutional.1 

By  Section  50  commissioners  are  made  personally  liable  for  all  damages 
sustained  by  any  party  aggrieved  by  failure  of'  the  commissioners  to  perform 
their  duties  and  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  a  willful  failure  to  adopt 
plans  to  secure  adequate  drainage  and  to  levy  an  additional  assessment  for 
this  purpose  makes  the  commissioners  personally  liable  for  the  damages 
occasioned  thereby.2 

Under  Section  65a  of  the  Levee  Act,  provision  is  now  made  for  organ- 
ization of  what  are  called  outlet  districts.  They  are  districts  organized  to 
improve  a  stream  or  river  which  constitutes  the  common  outlet  for  two  or 
more  drainage  districts  as  well  as  other  land  and  thev  are  organized  on  the 


iSee  Hillview  D.  D.  v.  Doudall,  276  III.  33. 
2Binder  v.  Langhorst,  234  III.  583. 


258  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

same  kind  of  petition  and  with  the  same  kind  of  procedure  as  other  Levee  Act 
districts.  They  possess  the  power  not  given  to  other  drainage  districts  of  in- 
cluding other  drainage  districts  within  the  boundaries  of  the  outlet  district 
and  with  the  privilege  of  assessing  other  drainage  districts  for  benefits  con- 
ferred by  deepening  and  straightening  the  outlet  stream. 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  we  have  already  pointed  out  that  the 
commissioners  are  elected  by  the  land  owners  soon  after  the  organization  of 
the  district  in  all  kinds  of  districts,  and  that  from  that  time  on,  election  is 
the  means  of  filling  vacancies  in  the  board  of  commissioners.  The  Farm 
Drainage  Act  does  not  contain  so  many  provisions  defining  the  powers  and 
duties  of  the  commissioners  as  does  the  Levee  Act.  We  have  already  men- 
tioned the  duty  resting  upon  Farm  Drainage  commissioners  to  afford  main 
outlets  of  ample  capacity  to  drain  the  district  whenever  this  is  practicable, 
and  undoubtedly  their  commissioners  would  be  personally  liable  for  willful 
failure  to  regard  this  duty.  Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  (Section  73),  the 
commissioners  receive  three  dollars  a  day  for  the  time  actually  employed  in 
their  official  duties  and  they  make  out  their  account  under  oath,  which  in  all 
districts  except  special  drainage  districts  is  audited  and  allowed  by  the  board 
of  auditors  of  the  town  in  which  the  district  was  organized,  and  in  special 
districts  their  account  is  presented  to  and  allowed  by  the  judge  of  the  county 
in  which  the  district  was  organized.  The  clerk  received  the  same  fee  as  is 
allowed  for  like  services  in  matters  connected  with  his  office,  and  the  treasurer 
(who  in  one-  and  two-town  districts  is  the  supervisor,  and  in  special  districts 
is  the  county  treasurer)  receives  a  sum  to  be  fixed  by  the  commissioners  not 
to  exceed  2  per  cent  of  money  collected  by  him  and  to  exceed  1  per  cent  on 
moneys  paid  by  other  collectors  or  treasurer  and  in  no  case  to  exceed  $500.00 
a  year  for  his  services. 

The  Farm  Drainage  Act  contains  a  specific  provision  that  farm  bridges 
shall  be  erected  by  the  district  whenever  a  ditch  goes  through  a  field  and 
there  is  no  corresponding  provision  in  the  Levee  Act.1 

The  Supreme  Court,  by  construction,  held  that  all  meetings  in  one-  and 
two-town  districts  must  be  held  within  the  boundaries  of  the  drainage  district 
and  after  the  amendment  of  Section  2  in  1915,  meetings  in  these  districts 
could  also  be  held  at  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  drainage  district.  The 
classification  on  an  assessment  or  a  meeting  to  organize  held  elsewhere  makes 
all  the  proceedings  at  that  meeting  utterly  null  and  void,  and  the  collection  of 
the  assessment  can  be  defeated  on  tax  proceedings  because  of  this.2 

In  special  districts,  meetings  can  be  held  anywhere  in  the  county.3 

In  farm  drainage  districts,  especially  in  one-  and  two-town  districts  the 
drainage  record  kept  by  the  clerk  is  very  important,  as  it  is  the  only  legal 
evidence  of  what  the  commissioners  have  ordered  done  and  when  the  drainage 


iMcCaleb  v.  Coon  River  D.  D.,   190  111.   549. 

2Peo.  v.  Carr,  231  111.  502  ;    Peo.  v.  Camp,  243  111.  154. 

3Lake  Fork  D.  D.  v.  Highway  Comrs.,  292  111.  340. 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS   OF  ILLINOIS  259 

record  is  silent,  no  presumptions  are  indulged  as  to  what  took  place.  It  can- 
not be  supplemented,  contradicted  nor  added  to  by  parol,1  except  that  recitals 
in  the  drainage  record,  showing  that  the  commissioners  had  jurisdiction  over 
the  persons  or  of  the  subject  matter  to  make  classification,  can  be  contra- 
dicted.2 The  drainage  record  must  show  the  receipts  and  disbursements  of 
money  and  must  show  that  in  the  letting  of  contracts  the  law  was  complied 
with.  It  can  be  determined  at  any  time  to  show  the  true  facts,  but  the  facts 
must  be  shown  by  the  record.3 

Under  Section  15b,  orders  must  be  drawn  by  the  chairman  and  clerk 
and  it  is  not  sufficient  that  all  three  commissioners  sign  the  order  if  not  done 
in  the  above  capacities,4  but  Section  15b  was  repealed  in  1919. 

Sections  4  to  10  of  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  simply  codify  the  law  of 
natural  drainage,  giving  an  upper  land  owner  the  right  to  drain  his  land 
across  the  lower  land  below  him  when  such  is  the  natural  condition  of  things. 
These  sections  also  provide  that  when  it  is  necessary  for  one  land  owner  to 
extend  drains  from  his  lands  across  the  lands  of  another  to  obtain  a  proper 
outlet,  as  for  instance  when  an  upper  land  owner  desires  to  lay  a  tile  drain 
through  the  land  of  another  owner  below  him,  he  can  go  into  a  justice  court 
and  have  the  damages  first  ascertained  and  then  can  enter  upon  the  land  of 
the  lower  owner  and  construct  the  drain. 

Provisions  are  found  in  both  acts  penalizing  willful  injuries  to  drains 
(Section  44,  F.  D.  Act;   Section  66  Levee  Act). 

Reference  should  be  made  to  the  provisions  of  both  of  them  allowing  a 
lower  drainage  district  to  collect  damages  from  an  upper  district  or  rather  to 
assess  the  upper  district  for  benefits  conferred  by  the  lower  district  in  making 
an  outlet  for  the  higher  lands.  In  the  absence  of  a  statute  imposing  liability, 
the  upper  and  dominant  district  is  not  liable  to  the  lower  and  servient  district 
for  connecting  its  ditches  with  the  ditches  of  the  lower  district.5  In  1913,  an 
independent  act  was  passed  applying  to  all  drainage  districts  under  both  acts, 
allowing  such  a  recovery.  By  Section  3  of  this  Act,  the  commissioners  are 
empowered  to  enter  into  a  contract  to  settle  the  amount  to  be  paid  by  each  of 
the  districts  for  the  construction  of  the  work  in  the  lower  district  which  will 
benefit  the  upper  district,  which  contract  is  subject  to  the  approval  of  the 
County  Court,  after  published  notice  given  for  two  weeks  to  people  in  the 
district.  Where  an  agreement  cannot  be  reached,  the  commissioners  of  the 
lower  district  can  bring  a  common  law  action  against  the  upper  district  in 
the  County  Court  of  the  county  where  the  upper  district  was  organized,  and 
the  court  in  that  action  settles  the  amount  of  compensation. 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  (Section  41)  if  an  upper  district  in  order 
to  obtain  a  proper  outlet  goes  below  it  into  the  lands  of  another  organized 

Peo.  v.  Adair,  247  111.  398  J  Peo.  v.  Kuns,  248  111.  42. 


iPeo. 

v. 

Carr, 

231   111. 

502  ;    P< 

2Peo. 

V. 

Graham,   280  : 

[11.  303. 

3Peo. 

V. 

Zellar, 

224   111. 

408. 

4Peo. 

V. 

Wylie, 

283    III. 

515. 

5D.  E 

».  \ 

•.  1).   I) 

.,   130  111 

.   261. 

260  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

district  and  improves  a  natural  or  artificial  channel  there  in  such  a  way  as  to 
benefit  the  lower  district,  the  lower  district  can  be  compelled  to  pay  to  the 
upper  district  the  amount  of  benefits  conferred  and  if  an  agreement  cannot 
be  reached,  the  commissioners  of  the  upper  district  can  bring  a  suit  in  the 
name  of  the  people  of  the  district  against  the  commissioners  of  the  lower 
district  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  county  where  such  drainage  district  is 
organized. 

Reference  should  also  be  made  to  the  provisions  of  the  two  acts  relating 
to  the  formation  of  sub-districts.  The  function  of  a  sub-district  is  to  provide, 
for  a  sort  of  drainage  district  within  a  drainage  district ;  to  construct  minute 
and  particular  drainage  for  particular  areas  within  the  district,  using  the 
main  ditches  constructed  by  the  entire  districts  as  outlets.  Sub-districts  are  not 
independent  corporations  but  are  mere  administrative  units  or  sub-divisions 
of  the  main  district.1  Section  59  of  the  Levee  Act  provides  that  any  dis- 
trict which  maintains  a  levee  as  part  of  its  work,  which  contains  lands  in 
particular  localities  within  the  drainage  district  in  need  of  more  minute  and 
complete  drainage,  such  localities  can  be  organized  into  sub-districts  either  on 
petition  of  the  same  requisite  majorities  required  in  case  of  the  organization 
of  main  district  or  on  petition  of  the  commissioners  of  the  main  district  to 
the  County  Court,  with  the  three  weeks'  notice  to  all  land  owners  in  the 
proposed  sub-district  and  a  hearing  in  the  County  Court  similar  to  the  hearing 
in  the  main  district  to  organize  it.  After  the  sub-district  is  organized,  assess- 
ments are  levied  in  it  just  the  same  as  in  the  main  district  and  sub-districts 
have  the  power  to  annex  lands  which  connect  with  the  ditches  of  the  sub- 
district  or  which  are  benefited  by  the  work  of  the  sub-districts.  The  peculiar 
feature  of  this  is  that  only  districts  which  maintain  a  levee  as  part  of  the  work 
of  the  district  can  organize  a  sub-district.  As  the  Supreme  Court  has  held 
that  the  entire  main  district  cannot  be  assessed  to  do  what  is  properly  sub- 
district  work,2  in  districts  which  do  not  maintain  a  levee  as  part  of  the  work 
of  the  main  district,  it  is  doubtful  whether  local,  minute,  and  particular 
drainage  work  can  be  done  at  the  district's  expense  at  all.  Under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act  (Section  43)  sub-districts  may  be  formed  either  by  the  owners 
of  land  in  the  main  district  (no  majority  requirements  being  stated)  or  by 
the  commissioners  without  any  notice,  in  any  case  where  it  is  necessary  to 
provide  for  the  drainage  of  separate  areas  within  the  main  district  by  lateral 
drains  or  proposed  drains  which  are  independent  of  each  other  except  as  to 
the  main  drain  or  outlet.  Assessments  in  these  sub-districts  are  made  just  the 
same  as  in  the  main  districts  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  Additional  pro- 
vision is  made  in  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  for  a  sub-district  within  a  sub- 
district,  which  is  called  a  minor  sub-district.  This  drains  a  particular  inde- 
pendent area  within  the  sub-district. 


JRny  Island  D.  D.  v.  Bovd  D.  D.,  273  111.  533  ;  Koeller  v.  Salisbury,  276  111.  230. 
-'Sangamon  and   Drummer  D.  D.  v.  I.  C.  R.  R.,  272  111.   374. 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS   OF   ILLINOIS  261 

Under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  where  sub-districts  contain  not  less  than 
five  sections  of  land,  upon  a  petition  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  land  owners 
in  the  sub-district,  such  sub-district  can  have  independent  commissioners  of 
its  own,  who  are  elected  at  the  same  time  as  the  drainage  commissioners  in 
the  main  district;  these  latter  are  always  ex-officio  commissioners  of  the 
sub-district. 

In  both  acts,  the  accounts  and  records  of  assessments  of  sub-districts  are 
always  kept  separate  from  the  records  and  accounts  of  main  districts  and 
as  administrative  units  they  are  entirely  independent  of  each  other. 

Lastly,  the  provisions  of  these  two  acts  in  regard  to  the  liability  for  re- 
placing public  highway  bridges  which  are  destroyed  or  removed  by  the  drain- 
age commissioners  in  doing  drainage  work  should  be  noticed,  because  of  the 
larger  amount  of  litigation  growing  out  of  this  question.  Section  55  of  the 
Levee  Act  provided  in  part  that  the  expense  of  replacing  highway  bridges 
destroyed  or  removed  by  the  drainage  district  where  the  work  of  the  drainage 
district  was  constructed  along  the  line  of  any  natural  depression,  channel,  or 
water  course,  should  be  borne  by  the  road  districts,  and  Section  40^4  of  the 
Farm  Drainage  Act  contained  a  similar  provision.  The  Supreme  Court  held 
these  provisions  unconstitutional1  in  so  far  as  they  attempted  to  impose  any 
liability  upon  the  road  districts  or  highway  commissioners  regardless  of 
whether  the  bridge  crossed  a  natural  depression  or  channel  or  whether  it  was 
a  bridge  across  an  artificial  drainage  district  dug  by  the  district.  However, 
the  provision  in  both  acts  requiring  a  railroad  company  to  remove  its  trestle 
or  bridge  in  the  line  of  a  natural  stream  or  channel  which  the  drainage  dis- 
trict wishes  to  utilize  in  constructing  its  work  has  been  held  valid.2 

MISCELLANEOUS  INDEPENDENT  ACTS 

It  is  believed  that  the  above  discussion  covers  all  of  the  important  out- 
standing features  of  the  two  drainage  acts.  In  addition  to  the  Farm  Drain- 
age Act,  and  the  Levee  Act  proper,  there  are  the  following  independent  acts, 
the  titles  to  which  sufficiently  suggest  their  subject  matter  and  which  are 
largely  applicable  to  districts  organized  under  both  of  the  above  acts : 

1.  An  Act  to  extend  the  time  and  provide  for  the  payment  of  assess- 
ments of  benefits  in  drainage  districts,  approved  and  in  force  May  22,  1885. 
This  provides  in  brief  that  after  an  assessment  is  levied  or  confirmed,  on 
petition  of  the  land  owners,  it  can  be  divided  into  installments,  or  the  ma- 
turities of  assessed  installments  can  be  lengthened. 

2.  An  Act  to  maintain  and  improve  county  ditches  heretofore  con- 
structed to  drain  certain  swamp  and  overflowed  lands,  approved  June  3,  1883, 
in  force  July  1,  1883.  In  brief  this  Act  provides  that  the  board  of  county 
commissioners  can  form  drainage  districts  within  a  county  and  classify  the 

iPeo.  v.  Block.  276  111.  286. 

2Peo.  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.,  212  111.  103. 


262  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

lands  as  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  for  the  purpose  of  securing  ample 
and  permanent  main  channels  of  drainage  for  peoples  in  the  counties.  It  is 
believed  that  this  Act  has  not  been  much  used. 

3.  The  Act  of  June  4,  1889,  for  the  dissolution  of  drainage  districts  has 
already  been  fully  discussed.  _j 

4.  An  Act  authorizing  all  drainage  districts  to  issue  bonds  and  pro- 
viding for  the  registration  and  payment  of  the  same.  This  Act  is  for  the 
registration  of  bonds  with  the  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  and  he  is  author- 
ized to  issue  a  certificate  to  the  commissioners  of  the  drainage  district  issu- 
in  the  same  and  certify  this  to  the  count  yclerk  of  the  county  in  which  the 
district  is  organized,  and  the  clerk  is  then  authorized  to  make  out  a  tax  list 
of  the  lands  and  property  in  the  district  and  ascertain  also  its  pro  rata  share 
of  the  amount  so  certified  by  the  auditor  and  deliver  the  same  to  the  treasurer 
of  the  district.  This  Act  very  evidently  was  intended  to  apply  to  farm 
drainage  districts  only,  for  the  clerk  in  a  levee  district  would  have  no  author- 
ity to  levy  an  assessment  for  any  such  purpose. 

5.  An  Act  in  relation  to  the  abatement  of  assessments  for  benefits  in 
levee  and  drainage  districts.  This  provides  for  a  petition  by  the  land  owners 
or  commissioners  whenever  the  assessments  for  benefits  in  a  district  exceed 
the  total  amount  of  all  indebtedness  to  the  district  and  on  a  finding  to  that 
effect,  permitting  the  court  to  enter  an  order  rebating  the  assessment. 

6.  The  Act  in  relation  to  adjoining  drainage  districts  making  the  upper 
district  liable  to  the  lower  district  for  outlet  has  already  been  discussed. 

7.  An  Act  to  provide  for  constructing  pumping  plants  and  maintaining 
the  same  in  operation  in  drainage  and  levee  districts  and  special  drainage 
districts  heretofore  or  hereafter  organized,  and  to  legalize  and  to  validate 
former  proceedings,  assessments,  bond  issues,  indebtedness  and  expenditures 
in  regard  to  or  on  account  of  the  erection,  maintenance  and  operation  of 
pumping  plants,  etc.,  approved  June  27,  1913.  This  Act  was  passed  to 
validate  the  unconstitutional  pumping  plant  acts  of  1905,  1907,  191 1.1  It 
also  empowers  all  districts  organized  under  the  Levee  Act  and  special  dis- 
tricts under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  to  build  pumping  plants  and  assess  the 
land  therefor. 

8.  An  Act  to  enable  adjoining  drainage  districts  to  construct  a  joint 
pumping  station  or  joint  pumping  stations,  ditches,  levees,  or  other  works,  to 
contract  for  the  proportion  of  the  cost  of  construction  and  maintenance  of 
the  same,  to  be  paid  by  each  and  providing  for  the  approval  of  the  same 
(by  a  hearing  to  all  persons  interested  after  notice)  approved  June  27,  1913. 

9.  An  Act  to  give  Circuit  Courts  and  County  Courts  concurrent  juris- 
diction in  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  organization  of  farm  drainage  districts 
(both  acts)  approved  June  5,  1909.    This  Act  provides  that  appeals  may  be 


iSee  Brooks  v.  Hatch,  261  111.  179. 


THE  DRAINAGE    LAWS   OF    ILLINOIS  263 

taken  from  the  final  orders  of  either  the  County  or  Circuit  Courts  in  drainage 
matters  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  was  held  constitutional.1 

10.  An  Act  to  invest  the  corporate  authorities  of  cities  and  villages  with 
power  to  construct,  maintain,  and  keep  in  repair  drains,  ditches,  levees,  dikes, 
and  pumping  works,  for  drainage  purposes  by  special  assessments  upon  the 
properties  benefited  thereby.  This  Act  has  no  reference  to  farm  drainage 
with  which  we  are  primarily  concerned  in  this  report,  and  should  be  ignored. 

11.  An  Act  to  enable  owners  of  farm  lands  which  form  any  part  of  a 
drainage  district  in  which  there  is  located  in  whole  or  in  part  a  city,  town  or 
village,  to  reorganize  as  a  separate  drainage  district  with  certain  rights  and 
duties  with  relation  thereto.  (June  26,  1917.)  The  rights  and  duties  re- 
ferred to  are  simply  an  adjudication  as  to  the  share  of  indebtedness  of  the 
original  district  which  the  city  or  village  so  reorganized  should  assume. 

12.  An  Act  to  authorize  the  levying  of  special  assessments  on  the  lands, 
railroads,  public  highways,  and  municipal  corporations  situated  within  any 
drainage  district,  so  as  to  provide  the  funds  necessary  to  pay  the  cost  of  con- 
struction for  benefits  that  shall  have  been  conferred  by  the  construction  of 
any  improvement  without  special  assessments  having  been  legally  levied  prior 
thereto,  and  providing  for  the  issuance  of  bonds  payable  out  of  such  special 
assessments  authorized  by  this  Act  to  be  levied.  (June  11,  1917.)  This  Act 
by  its  express  terms  only  applies  to  assessments  in  districts  "within  which 
there  shall  have  been  heretofore  at  the  request  of  such  commissioners"  con- 
structed any  drainage  improvement,  etc. 

These  Acts  are  mentioned  in  brief  in  connection  with  the  Levee  Act  and 
Farm  Drainage  Act  in  order  that  the  pertinence  of  the  discussion  in  the  next 
chapter  may  be  apparent. 

Defects  in  the  Present  Law 

The  mere  statement  of  the  methods  of  procedure  in  the  preceding  dis- 
cussion will  suggest  at  once  a  great  defect  in  the  present  statutory  provisions 
relating  to  drainage  in  Illinois,  namely:  the  intricacy  and  confusion  caused 
by  the  two  independent  Drainage  Acts  and  by  the  twelve  Independent  Acts 
applying  sometimes  to  both  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  and  the  Levee  Act,  some- 
times to  one  of  those  acts,  and  sometimes  to  the  Levee  Act  and  to  certain 
kinds  of  districts  only  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act.  The  first  great  defect, 
then,  is  a  lack  of  simplicity  in  our  drainage  statutes.  If  the  Farm  Drainage 
Act  and  if  the  Levee  Act  and  these  other  independent  acts  were  pieces  of 
model  legislation  considered  separately,  the  mere  fact  that  they  are  on  the 
statute  books  and  are  being  construed  by  the  Supreme  Court  sometimes  with- 
out making  clear  just  which  act  the  decision  relates  to,  would  be  a  grave 
defect  unless  it  were  impossible  to  have  one  act  covering  all  drainage  situa- 
tions in  the  State. 


!250   111.    404. 


264  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

But  there  are  defects  in  the  acts  considered  separately  which  need  to  be 
pointed  out  and  it  might  be  well  to  state  in  advance  the  source  of  some  of 
these  defects.  Too  many  times  a  particular  district  in  some  part  of  the  State 
has  had  some  particular  problem  to  grapple  with  and  has  rushed  to  Spring- 
field to  get  the  Legislature  to  amend  some  section  of  these  two  acts  to  pro- 
vide for  the  transitory  emergency  in  that  particular  drainage  district  with- 
out reference  to  the  effect  of  amendment  upon  drainage  districts  all  over  the 
State.  Again  owing  to  a  confusion  created  by  the  presence  of  the  two  acts, 
the  Levee  Act  at  least  has  been  amended  by  adding  procedure  which  could 
only  be  applicable  to  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  and  which  is  entirely  out  of 
harmony  with  all  the  rest  of  the  Levee  Act.  When  we  come  to  discussing 
suggestions  for  remedies,  these  matters  will  be  more  fully  developed  and  we 
turn  now  to  the  particular  defects  in  the  present  legislation,  particularly  with 
reference  to  the  Levee  Act  which  is  by  far  the  most  important  statute  used 
in  the  organization  of  the  large  drainage  districts  in  late  years. 

Section  44  on  abandonment  provides  that  at  any  time  before  the  contract 
is  let,  on  a  petition  of  a  majority  of  the  landowners  owning  a  majority  in 
area  of  the  land,  the  court  may  abolish  the  district  upon  the  payment  by  the 
petitioners  of  the  court  costs  to  that  date.  As  before  indicated  the  Supreme 
Court  held  that  as  to  districts  organized  before  July  1,  1919,  this  act  could 
not  be  held  applicable  because  it  would  be  unconstitutional  in  impairing  the 
obligations  of  contracts  made  by  the  district  with  engineers,  attorneys,  and 
others  between  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the  district  and  filing  of  the 
petition  to  abandon.  But  it  is  possible  that  no  contract  would  be  impaired  in 
a  district  organized  after  July  1,  1919,  because  attorneys,  engineers,  com- 
missioners and  all  other  persons  performing  valuable  services  for  the  district 
after  its  organization  and  before  the  letting  of  the  contract  would  do  so  with 
knowledge  and  with  the  risk  that  these  services  would  not  be  compensated  if 
a  proper  petition  to  abandon  were  filed  and  acted  upon.  Certainly  justice 
would  seem  to  require  that  after  a  district  is  organized  all  lawful  expenses 
up  to  the  time  of  abandonment  should  be  paid  by  those  who  wish  to  discon- 
tinue the  work.  Moreover,  as  a  practical  proposition,  there  is  always  a  low 
water  mark  of  interest  in  drainage  projects  which  occurs  just  after  the  first 
assessment  has  been  levied  and  before  the  work  has  been  done.  It  is  at  this 
time  that  the  landowner  can  see  his  money  going  out  and  yet  cannot  see  the 
benefits  which  he  will  derive  because  the  work  itself  has  not  been  completed. 
The  feasibility  of  the  work  ought  to  have  been  pretty  well  threshed  out  in 
the  organization  proceedings ;  and  the  majority  necessary  to  put  through  a 
petition  to  abandon  and  abolish  the  district  ought  to  be  larger  than  at  present 
provided. 

There  are  a  number  of  unconstitutional  provisions,  expressly  so  declared 
in  the  present  Levee  Act,  which  should  be  eliminated  entirely.  The  second 
proviso  to  Section  55  states :    "that  the  amount  so  assessed  against  any  rail- 


THE  DRAINAGE  LAWS  OF  ILLINOIS  265 

road  company  or  private  corporation  shall,  upon  the  confirmation  of  the 
assessment  roll,  by  the  County  Court,  become  a  lien  upon  the  real  property 
of  such  railroad  company  or  private  corporation  and  have  the  same  force 
and  effect  as  a  judgment  at  law  in  favor  of  such  district  against  such  rail- 
road company  or  private  corporation  and  execution  may  issue  thereon  as 
upon  judgments  in  courts  of  record  in  other  cases  and  shall  have  a  like  lien 
upon  personal  estate."  This  is  unconstitutional  because  a  drainage  proceed- 
ing is  strictly  in  rem  and  can  only  be  enforced  against  the  property  within 
the  district.1  Again,  the  third  provision  of  Section  65  is  that  the  "corporate 
authorities  of  such  road  or  railroad  are  hereby  required  at  their  own  expense 
to  construct  such  bridge,  culvert  or  other  work  or  to  replace  any  bridge  or 
culvert  temporarily  removed  by  the  commissioners  in  doing  the  work  of  such 
district."  As  applied  to  the  public  highways,  this  is  unconstitutional  because 
it  imposes  indirectly  a  tax  upon  the  inhabitants  of  the  road  district  by  drain- 
age commissioners  in  whose  selection  they  have  had  no  voice  (that  is,  they 
are  not  corporate  authorities  of  such  road  districts).  The  Supreme  Court, 
however,  has  recently  held  that  while  a  drainage  district  has  to  stand  the 
expense  of  replacing  such  a  bridge,  they  only  have  to  replace  the  same  kind 
of  a  bridge  that  they  took  out  and  when  replaced,  a  bridge  across  a  natural 
depression  or  stream  must  be  maintained  by  the  road  authorities. 

Sections  48  and  49  give  a  justice  of  the  peace  jurisdiction  to  organize  a 
district  or  to  hold  assessment  proceedings  up  to  the  point  of  confirmation  in 
all  cases  where  the  amount  involved  does  not  exceed  twro  thousand  dollars. 
The  organization  of  a  drainage  district  and  the  difficult  legal  principles  in- 
volved in  making  assessments  make  this  jurisdiction  of  the  justice  more  of  a 
pitfall  than  a  convenience,  and  ninety  per  cent  of  the  lawyers  in  this  State, 
we  believe,  are  in  favor  of  leaving  justice  courts  out  of  these  matters. 

The  last  part  of  Section  48  provides  that  after  the  assessment  is  made 
in  the  justice  court  following  as  far  as  possible  the  procedure  in  the  County 
Court,  the  justice  shall  not  confirm  the  assessment  but  shall  present  and  file 
the  assessment  roll  for  confirmation  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  County 
Court  of  the  county  in  which  the  greater  part  of  the  land  in  such  district  is 
situated  and  like  proceedings  shall  be  had  with  the  same  by  the  County  Court 
as  in  case  of  assessments  made  by  juries  in  districts  organized  by  said  court. 
This  was  part  of  the  old  Levee  Act  of  1885  and  at  that  time  assessments 
of  damages  and  benefits  were  made  in  both  the  County  Court  and  justice 
court,  either  by  the  commissioners  or  by  a  jury  empanelled  without  any 
notice  whatever  to  the  landowners  who  went  out  on  the  lands  and  prepared 
their  assessment  and  brought  it  back  to  court  complete  and  then  for  the 
first  time  the  landowners  were  allowed  to  come  in  and  make  objection  to  the 
assessment.  After  objections  were  made,  if  the  jury  or  the  commissioners 
saw  fit  to  correct  them,  they  could  do  so  under  the  directions  of  the  court 

iSpring  Crfiek  D.  D.  v.  E.  J.  &  E.  R.  R.  Co.,  249  111.  260. 


266  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLI^lv/IS 

and  after  all  the  evidence  was  heard  and  the  corrections  had  been  made  or 
not  made  as  the  case  might  be,  the  court  confirmed  the  assessment.  This 
kind  of  a  jury  and  an  assessment  of  damages  made  by  commissioners  under 
the  above  circumstances  were  held  unconstitutional  in  the  Supreme  Court  as 
being  in  violation  of  the  eminent  domain  proceedings  of  the  Constitution.1 
And  after  this  the  present  method  of  having  an  eminent  domain  jury  as 
provided  in  Sections  17  and  17a,  was  introduced  into  the  Levee  Act  to  meet 
the  constitutional  objections. 

Section  48a  was  framed  with  the  old  unconstitutional  system  in  mind 
and  is  utterly  anomalous  in  the  light  of  the  present  system. 

Section  58a  of  the  Levee  Act  added  in  1917,  relating  to  the  annexation 
of  lands  outside  the  district  on  petition  of  their  owners  or  on  petition  of  the 
requisite  majority  of  owners  owning  the  requisite  majority  of  land  in  a  cer- 
tain area  outside  the  district,  provides  that  after  the  annexation  these  lands 
shall  be  "classified  and  taxed  like  other  lands,"  etc.  There  is  no  provision 
in  the  Levee  Act  for  classification  and  all  these  provisions  about  classifying 
should  come  out  of  that  section. 

Section  59  of  the  Levee  Act  contains  the  "joker"  above  referred  to  in 
that  it  only  allows  the  formation  of  sub-districts  in  districts  which  maintain 
a  levee  as  part  of  the  work  of  the  main  district.  Certainly  all  drainage  dis- 
tricts should  be  allowed  to  form  sub-districts  without  regard  to  whether  they 
have  a  levee  or  not. 

Section  58  as  amended  in  1919  now  provides  that  land  outside  the  drain- 
age district  which  is  benefited  by  the  work  in  the  district  cannot  be  annexed 
by  the  drainage  commissioners  unless  the  owner  of  such  outside  land  has  also 
connected  his  land  artificially  with  the  ditches  of  the  drainage  district  or 
with  any  artificial  drains  that  lead  into  the  ditches  of  the  district.  Formerly 
this  section  provided  that  land  which  Avas  either  benefited  or  had  been  con- 
nected artificially  with  the  ditches  of  the  district  might  be  annexed  and  that 
seems  to  be  the  preferable  course.  However,  under  the  old  act  this  right  of 
annexation  was  subject  to  abuse  in  this  way:  a  small  district  in  which  the 
requisite  majority  of  landowners  could  be  obtained  might  be  formed  and  then 
reach  out  and  take  in  a  great  number  of  unwilling  areas  of  land  which  were 
benefited  by  the  work  of  the  district.  The  Supreme  Court  held  in  People  v. 
Swearingen,  273  111.  630,  that  if  it  was  clear  that  a  district  was  organized 
for  this  illegal  purpose,  the  organization  would  be  void  but  they  intimated 
in  that  opinion  that  if  a  district  was  bona  fide  organized  it  could  annex  un- 
willing owners  of  land  benefited  (who  had  not  artificially  connected  with  the 
ditches  of  the  district),  even  though  the  effect  of  such  annexation  was  to 
destroy  the  requisite  majority  of  land.  As  a  compromise  between  these  two 
undesirable  results,  Section  58  might  be  made  to  provide  that  annexation 


iWabash  R.  R.  v.   Coon  Run  D.  D.,   194  111.  310  ;    Juvenall  v.  Jamesburg  D.  D.,   204 
111.  106. 


THE  DRAINAGE    LAWS    OF   ILLINOIS 


267 


could  take  place  up  to  the  point  where  the  requisite  majorities  were  not  de- 
stroyed, and  that  at  the  time  of  such  annexation  the  original  unwilling  owners 
or  those  who  did  not  sign  the  petition  at  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the 
original  district  could  be  permitted  to  add  their  names  to  the  original  petition 
and  thus  increase  the  original  majority.  This  would  be  in  line  with  the  pro- 
visions of  Section  12  which  permits  the  commissioners  before  the  original 
district  is  organized  to  enlarge  the  boundaries  by  taking  in  other  tracts  bene- 
fited up  to  the  point  where  the  requisite  majorities  are  not  destroyed. 

Section  63  provides  a  special  oath  which  the  commissioners  formerly 
took  when  making  assessments  under  the  old  unconstitutional  assessment 
proceedings.  Since  these  proceedings  have  been  superseded  by  Sections  17 
and  17a,  this  oath  has  become  utterly  unnecessary  and  the  Supreme  Court 
has  held  that  Section  63  has  been  repealed  by  implication.1  Section  63  should 
be  expressly  repealed  and  taken  out  of  the  act. 

There  are  a  few  other  matters  which  are  urged  as  defects  in  the  Levee 
Act,  but  which  are  not  so  regarded  by  us. 

It  has  been  urged  that  there  are  too  many  appeals  to  the  Supreme  Court 
allowed  from  the  time  the  district  is  organized  through  the  first  assessment. 
An  appeal  is  allowed  from  the  order  organizing  the  district ;  from  the  order 
approving  or  dismissing  the  petition  to  do  additional  work  under  Section  37 ; 
or  from  the  final  order  confirming  the  assessment  roll.  But  these  provisions 
for  appeal  have  this  distinct  advantage :  when  an  appeal  is  not  taken,  the 
matters  settled  in  the  adjudication  up  to  that  point  are  final  and  cannot  be 
complained  of  in  a  subsequent  appeal  from  the  subsequent  orders.  If  one 
appeal  were  allowed  at  the  time  of  the  first  assessment  and  the  organization 
of  the  district,  the  necessity  for  the  additional  work  and  the  fairness  of  the 
assessment  could  all  be  litigated,  two  of  the  three  proceedings  might  be  en- 
tirely correct  and  yet  the  whole  thing  have  to  be  done  over  again  because 
one  step  was  erroneous.  To  use  a  homely  phrase,  we  feel  that  it  is  best  to 
settle  one  thing  at  a  time  and  settle  it  finally. 

It  has  also  been  urged  that  the  provision  under  the  Levee  Act  for  doing 
additional  work  and  levying  additional  assessments  is  unduly  expensive  and 
cumbersome.  Under  Section  37  it  required  the  making  of  a  new  assessment 
from  start  to  finish.  But  it  is  hard  to  see  how  any  constitutional  provision 
could  be  made  allowing  the  commissioners  to  levy  an  additional  assessment 
without  a  hearing  before  the  jury  or  at  least  without  a  public  hearing  on  the 
assessment  roll  before  themselves.  The  jury  in  the  first  assessment  simply 
determines  that  the  amount  of  that  assessment  against  each  tract  of  land, 
is  not  in  excess  of  the  total  benefits  to  that  tract,  and  represents  the  propor- 
tionate part  of  the  benefits  to  that  tract  as  compared  to  the  total  benefits  to 
the  district.  If  the  commissioners  were  to  levy  an  additional  assessment 
upon  the  same  proportion,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  question  of  benefits  to 

iHillview  D.  D.  v.  Doudall,  276  111.  33. 


268  LAND  DRAINAGE  IN   ILLINOIS 

that  land  would  not  be  open  on  tax  objections  just  as  it  is  today  under  the 
Farm  Drainage  Act.  The  one  great  virtue  of  the  Levee  Act  is  that  when  an 
assessment  is  levied  and  confirmed  and  not  appealed  from,  it  is  tolerably 
certain  that  the  money  would  be  collected  and  this  certainty  of  collection 
justified  a  good  deal  of  preliminary  trouble  to  make  it  so. 

One  very  positive  defect  in  the  present  Levee  Act  is  the  provision  re- 
quiring a  petition  of  the  requisite  majority  to  organize  a  very  large  drainage 
district  lying  in  several  different  counties.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  get 
enough  signers  to  such  a  petition  and  when  signers  are  obtained,  it  is  nearly 
impossible  to  find  a  man  who  can  truthfully  make  the  affidavit  of  his  own 
knowledge  that  the  petition  is  signed  by  the  requisite  majority.  In  other 
words,  it  is  hard  to  get  a  petition  and  just  about  as  hard  to  make  proof  of 
the  fact  if  it  is  gotten.  However,  at  the  time  of  assessment,  the  name  of 
each  owner  of  land  in  the  district  and  the  description  of  the  land  must  be 
known  in  order  to  get  jurisdiction  over  him.  If  he  lives  outside  of  the 
counties  where  the  district  is  located,  he  is  a  non-resident  within  the  meaning 
of  Section  3,  and  a  notice  must  be  sent  to  him  and  since  this  information  must 
be  obtained,  then,  it  is  possibly  not  unduly  burdensome  to  require  it  to  be 
obtained  in  advance.  Some  ignorant  people  object  to  the  limitation  upon 
assessments  that  they  must  not  exceed  the  total  amount  of  benefits  to  the 
lands,  but  until  the  Constitution  is  changed,  this  limitation  cannot  be  infringed. 

Turning  now  to  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  the  first  and  most  obvious  de- 
fect is  the  confusion  created  by  the  presence  of  the  three  kinds  of  districts 
which  it  covers,  namely,  one-town  districts,  union  and  special  districts.  Even 
if  there  is  some  logical  reason  for  providing  different  methods  of  organizing 
covered  by  these  three  kinds  of  districts  and  based  on  the  township  system,  it 
is  hard  to  see  why  after  their  organization  the  procedure  in  the  different 
districts  should  vary  so  widely  and  why  for  instance  this  provision  should  be 
made  for  dissolving  a  one-town  district  different  from  dissolving  union  or 
special  districts. 

Another  very  serious  defect  in  the  single  town  and  union  districts  is  the 
fact  that  these  districts  are  organized  before  highway  commissioners  and  not 
before  a  court,  and  that  after  their  organization  the  important  acts  of  assess- 
ment and  classification  are  entrusted  to  mere  drainage  commissioners  and 
not  to  a  court.  There  is  this  important  advantage  in  organizing  a  drainage 
district  before  a  court:  The  record  of  a  court  cannot  be  gone  into  in  any 
collateral  proceeding  and  contradicted  by  matter  dehors  the  record,  but  the 
jurisdictional  findings  of  the  highway  commissioners  in  organizing  a  district 
or  spreading  an  assessment  can  be  contradicted.1  Moreover,  the  very  im- 
portant rights  of  land  owners  are  far  better  secured  before  a  judicial  tribunal 
than  before  a  local  body  of  highway  commissioners,  untrained  in  applying  the 
law.     It  is  true  that  the  litigation  over  the  formation  of  districts  under  the 

iPeople  v.  Graham,  280  111.  303. 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS   OF   ILLINOIS  269 

Levee  Act  has  been  more  frequent  in  the  Supreme  Court  in  late  years  than 
similar  litigation  affecting  the  organization  of  farm  drainage  districts.  But 
this  is  due  first  to  the  fact  that  very  few  large  drainage  districts  are  organ- 
ized any  more  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act,  and  further  because  there  is  no 
method  of  judicial  review  of  the  organization  of  a  single  town  or  union  drain- 
age district  except  in  a  proceeding  by  quo  warranto.  Now  this  is  really  a 
point  in  favor  of  the  Levee  Act  method  of  organization  because  if  the  order 
organizing  a  Levee  Act  district  is  not  reviewed  by  appeal  or  writ  of  error 
to  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Levee  Act  districts  can  be  attacked  on  fewer 
grounds  in  quo  warranto  than  the  farm  drainage  districts  organized  by  high- 
way commissioners. 

We  said  above  that  assessment  and  classification  is  made  by  drainage 
commissioners  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  and  not  by  a  court.  This  is  not 
strictly  true  because  an  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  County  Court  from  the 
classification  hearing  after  notice  to  all  parties  interested  and  because  of  this 
fact,  the  mere  errors  in  the  making  of  a  classification  cannot  be  attacked 
collaterally.  But  the  County  Court  acts  only  as  an  appellate  tribunal  and  does 
not  attempt  to  make  the  jurisdictional  findings  with  regard  to  notice  to  the 
land  owners ;  and  the  commissioners'  finding  as  to  notice  to  the  classification 
meeting  can  be  attacked  collaterally.1 

As  before  pointed  out,  when  the  commissioners  of  a  farm  drainage  dis- 
trict make  an  assessment,  the  law  provides  no  notice  whatever  to  land  owners 
and  although  an  appeal  is  allowed  from  this  assessment,  it  is  very  doubtful 
whether  it  would  affect  the  right  to  collaterally  attack  the  assessment  if  a 
land  owner  could  show  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  had  neither  notice  nor 
knowledge  of  the  time  of  making  the  assessment. 

The  provisions  for  the  organization  of  sub-districts  under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act  (Section  43),  even  with  the  1919  amendment,  are  unduly  in- 
volved and  confusing.  The  principle  of  having  independent  commissioners 
for  sub-districts  instead  of  having  the  commissioners  of  the  main  district  act 
as  ex  officio  commissioners  thereof,  tends  to  a  lack  of  co-ordination  between 
the  main  district  and  the  sub-district.  The  provision  for  minor  sub-districts 
within  the  sub-districts  seems  hardly  necessary. 

Some  other  provisions  of  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  have  been  criticized 
but  it  is  an  open  question  whether  these  provisions  are  defective  or  not. 
The  principle  of  elective  commissioners  found  in  all  Farm  Drainage  Act 
districts  (with  exceptions  in  small  special  and  mutual  districts)  is  thought  to 
be  less  advantageous  than  commissioners  appointed  by  the  County  Court.  Elec- 
tive commissioners  have  this  advantage,  that  they  always  (under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act)  are  selected  from  land  owners  in  the  district  residing  within 
the  county  in  which  it  was  formed  and  are  the  choice  of  the  people  who 
have  to  pay  for  the  work,  and  who  therefore,  theoretically,  would  have  the 

iPeople  v.  Graham,  280  111.  303. 


270  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

best  interest  of  the  district  at  heart  because  they  themselves  are  affected  by 
whatever  is  done.  But  on  the  other  hand,  a  majority  of  the  owners  in  the 
district  who  organize  it  have  the  power  to  elect  their  own  commissioners 
who  may  represent  the  majority  very  well  and  adopt  the  kind  of  plan  which 
will  peculiarly  benefit  the  majority,  but  which  will  leave  the  minority  out  of 
their  calculations.  There  is  no  court  to  which  the  minority  can  go  to  show 
defects  in  these  plans  but  kind  of  work  to  be  done  depends  upon  the  caprice 
of  the  commissioners  except  that  they  can  be  mandamused  to  afford  main 
outlets  of  ample  capacity  including  all  those  in  the  minority.  Commissioners 
appointed  by  the  County  Court,  at  least  theoretically,  would  be  more  likely 
to  be  disinterested  persons  and  yet  when  the  County  Court  appoints  com- 
missioners, provision  is  usually  made  that  it  shall  be  done  upon  a  petition  of 
a  majority  of  the  land  owners  so  that  the  majority  would  still  have  some 
controlling  power.  As  above  pointed  out,  the  appointive  commissioners 
under  the  Levee  Act  need  not  be  land  owners  in  the  district  and  there  is  a 
greater  latitude  in  securing  competent  parties. 

Special  districts  under  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  can  only  be  organized 
when  a  bond  for  the  engineer's  and  attorney's  fees  is  put  up  by  the  com- 
missioners. This  provision  is  found  in  some  acts  of  other  states  as  will  be 
pointed  out  in  the  next  chapter,  and  its  wisdom  is  an  open  question.  On 
the  one  hand  the  attorneys,  engineers  and  commissioners  who  devote  their 
time  to  reporting  to  the  court  whether  a  district  should  be  formed,  ought  to 
be  paid  for  their  services,  but  whether  it  is  wise  to  make  the  formation  of 
the  drainage  district  conditioned  upon  the  payment  of  those  expenses  or 
whether  it  is  better  to  leave  the  attorneys  and  engineers  to  make  their  own 
private  contract  with  the  petitioners  and  leave  them  free  to  insist  upon  the 
payment  of  these  expenses  or  to  take  the  risk  of  the  formation  of  the  district 
in  some  cases,  is  a  matter  involving  considerable  difference  of  opinion.  It 
seems  only  fair  to  suppose  that  fewer  financial  restrictions  or  burdens  placed 
upon  the  petitioners  in  the  organization  of  a  district  will  be  more  conducive 
to  the  organization  of  a  larger  number  of  drainage  districts.  Because  of 
the  lesser  relative  importance  of  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  and  because  of  the 
immense  amount  of  tinkering  that  has  been  done  with  it  in  the  last  few 
years,  specific  criticisms  and  suggested  changes  of  phraseology,  will  not  be 
gone  into  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  Levee  Act.  The  objection  to  the 
Farm  Drainage  Act  lies  not  so  much  in  the  details  of  its  provisions  as  in 
the  fundamental  principles  underlying  its  provisions  for  organization  and 
assessment. 

Suggestions  for  Improvement  by  Legislation 

It  is  perhaps  an  open  question  whether  or  not  both  the  Levee  Act  and 
the  Farm  Drainage  Act  should  be  repealed  and  a  single,  simplified  code  sub- 
stituted in  their  stead  providing  a  single,  uniform  procedure  for  the  organ- 


THE  DRAINAGE   LAWS   OF  ILLINOIS  271 

ization  of  all  drainage  districts  and  for  all  work  of  construction  and  mainte- 
nance. Or,  the  suggestion  has  been  made  that  at  least  the  Farm  Drainage 
Act  should  be  amended  by  abolishing  the  distinctions  between  one-town,  two- 
town  and  special  districts,  and  providing  that  all  districts  under  the  Farm 
Drainage  Act  shall  be  organized  in  the  County  Court  just  like  the  present 
special  districts  and  that  the  future  procedure,  whether  in  the  County  Court 
or  before  elected  drainage  commissioners,  shall  be  uniform  in  all  farm  drain- 
age districts. 

However,  it  is  respectfully  submitted  that  in  the  light  of  the  foregoing 
discussion  of  defects,  there  can  be  little  dissent  that  the  following  specific 
amendments  to  the  Levee  Act  are  badly  needed  to  make  it  function  properly : 

1.  Section  44  on  Abandonment  should  be  amended  to  require  that  the 
petitioners  for  abandonment  should  be  required  to  pay  all  the  legal  obliga- 
tions incurred  by  the  district  as  well  as  court  costs,  as  a  prerequisite  to  aban- 
doning the  work  after  a  district  has  been  legally  organized. 

There  is  perhaps  some  question  as  to  who  should  pay  the  expenses  and 
court  costs  on  petition  for  abandonment.  If  the  district  has  been  fraudu- 
lently organized  by  the  original  petitioners,  there  is  justice  in  the  contention 
that  when  the  district  is  abandoned  the  original  petitioners  should  pay  all 
expenses.  On  the  other  hand,  all  owners  of  the  district  have  had  ample 
opportunity  to  present  their  case  to  the  court  at  the  time  the  district  was 
organized,  and  if  clear  proof  of  fraud  were  shown  it  ought  not  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  any  court  would  go  ahead  and  organize  the  district.  It  is, 
therefore,  recommended  that  after  the  district  is  formally  organized  those 
who  seek  its  dissolution  should  pay  all  of  the  expenses  thereof. 

2.  The  unconstitutional  provisions  of  Section  55  should  be  eliminated 
and  a  concise  statement  of  the  law  concerning  the  duties  and  rights  of  drain- 
age districts  in  relation  to  highway  bridges,  in  the  light  of  the  decisions  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  should  be  inserted  in  lieu  thereof. 

3.  Sections  48  and  49  concerning  justice-of-the-peace  jurisdiction 
should  be  repealed. 

4.  The  word  "classified"  should  be  eliminated  from  Section  58a  and 
provision  made  that  annexed  land  should  be  assessed  for  its  proportionate 
share  of  the  cost  of  the  original  improvement  on  the  basis  of  comparative 
benefits  from  the  original  wrork. 

5.  Section  55  should  be  amended  to  provide  that  sub-districts  may  be 
formed  in  any  drainage  district,  whether  such  district  has  a  levee  or  not,  and 
without  any  vote  of  the  people  in  a  municipality  contained  in  such  sub- 
district,  as  was  provided  formerly. 

6.  Section  58  should  provide  that  lands  may  be  annexed  to  a  drainage 
district  if  they  are  either  benefited  or  connected  with  the  ditches  of  the  district. 

7.  Section  63,  which  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  has  been  repealed 
by  implication,  should  be  expressly  repealed. 


272  LAND  DRAINAGE  IN   ILLINOIS 

It  is  generally  felt  that  provision  should  be  made  that  in  case  a  drainage 
district  is  not  organized,  the  engineer,  commissioners,  and  attorneys  who 
have  necessarily  devoted  their  time  toward  preparing  the  reports  to  the 
court  should  not  lose  all  compensation  for  their  services.  It  has  therefore 
been  suggested  that  Section  9  be  amended  to  give  the  commissioners  power 
to  borrow  money  to  pay  for  the  expense  of  making  surveys  etc.,  and  that 
Section  14  be  amended  to  provide  that  if  the  court  find  the  district  should 
not  be  organized,  the  proceeding  should  be  dismissed  at  the  cost  of  the 
petitioners,  said  costs  to  include  all  legitimate  expenses  and  obligations  in- 
curred by  the  commissioners. 

It  has  also  been  suggested  that  somewhere  the  act  should  define  the 
"owner"  for  the  purpose  of  signing  petitions,  with  special  reference  to 
situations  where  there  are  a  number  of  tenants  in  common  as  owners  of  a 
particular  tract,  or  where  there  is  a  life  estate  with  remainder  or  remainders 
in  fee  simple  in  any  tract. 

It  has  also  been  suggested  that  Section  43  providing  for  a  rehearing  of 
the  question  of  assessments  against  overflowed  lands  in  levee  districts  should 
be  omitted  because  all  of  the  questions  covered  by  that  proceeding  are  liti- 
gated at  the  time  of  making  the  assessment. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  Section  38  should  be  amended  to  provide 
that  when  bonds  are  issued  they  may  be  sold  by  order  of  the  court  for  less 
than  par.  This  is  suggested  because  a  six  per  cent  drainage  bond  is  un- 
salable under  present  abnormal  conditions. 

Some  minor  changes  making  definite  publication  dates  and  making 
more  specific  the  provision  relating  to  assessment  rolls,  might  be  profitably 
incorporated. 

As  a  matter  of  arrangement,  the  present  sections  might  profitably  be 
shifted  around  so  that  the  logical  steps  of  organization,  planning*  and  financ- 
ing of  the  work,  construction,  maintenance,  selection  and  duties  of  commis- 
sioners, and  miscellaneous  powers  of  the  district  and  abandonment — should 
be  taken  up  in  that  order  in  the  statute,  preserving  the  present  wording  ex- 
cept for  the  suggested  foregoing  amendments. 

Immediately  following  this  section  appears  a  suggested  draft  of  a 
revision  of  the  Levee  Act  which  was  introduced  in  both  houses  of  the 
Legislature  in  1921  and  which  incorporates  most  of  the  above  suggestions. 

Inasmuch  as  but  few  of  the  larger  districts  are  being  organized  under 
the  Farm  Drainage  Act  and  as  many  of  the  large  districts  formerly  organized 
under  it,  are  changing  over  and  adopting  the  Levee  Act  for  future  work,  it 
is  not  perhaps  so  important  that  the  Farm  Drainage  Act  be  overhauled. 

If  this  is  done  it  is  suggested  that  the  following  fundamental  changes 
should  be  made : 

(a)  All  farm  drainage  districts  should  be  organized  on  petition  to  the 
County  Court  like  the  present  special  districts  with  the  possible  elimination 


THE  DRAINAGE  LAWS  OF  ILLINOIS  273 

of  the  requirement  that  the  petitioners  must  give  bond  to  cover  all  organiza- 
tion expenses,  including  attorneys,  and  engineers'  fees.  They  should  of 
course  pay  the  court  costs  if  the  petition  is  dismissed. 

(b)  If  the  present  system  of  classification  and  assessment  made  by  the 
commissioners  is  retained,  provisions  should  be  made  that  notice  should  be 
given  to  all  land  owners  of  the  date  of  the  making  of  the  assessment  list  by 
the  commissioners,  so  that  if  no  appeal  was  taken  by  any  land  owner  he 
would  be  precluded  from  raising  any  question  of  benefits  on  tax  objections. 

(c)  The  procedure  of  assessment  and  classification  and  for  the  issuing 
of  bonds  should  be  made  uniform  in  all  drainage  districts. 

(d)  In  the  light  of  the  case  of  People  v.  Wilder,  257  111.  304,  Section 
43  in  relation  to  sub-districts  should  be  amended  to  provide  that  any  area 
within  the  main  district  needing  more  minute  and  particular  drainage  can 
be  organized  into  a  sub-district  (without  regard  to  whether  it  is  drained  by 
a  lateral  drain)  and  commissioners  of  the  main  district  should  be  made  ex 
officio  commissioners  of  the  sub-district,  and  the  commissioners  should  be 
given  the  power  to  annex  lands  to  sub-districts  which  connect  with  the  sub- 
district  ditches  or  are  benefited  by  the  work  or  to  change  the  boundaries  of 
sub-districts  on  proper  notice  whenever  in  their  judgment  the  drainage  con- 
ditions in  the  district  warrant  such  action. 


CHAPTER  XXXV— STATUS  OF  THE  REVISED  LEVEE  ACT 

As  has  been  stated,  the  1919  Legislature  authorized  the  State  Geological 
Survey  to  make  an  investigation  of  the  legal  and  engineering  problems  in 
connection  with  drainage  and  the  reclamation  of  wet  lands  in  Illinois,  and 
made  an  appropriation  for  that  purpose. 

The  Revised  Levee  Act,  which  is  herewith  printed  as  a  matter  of  record, 
was  prepared  on  the  basis  of  the  suggestions  made  in  Chapter  XXXIV.  It 
embodies  the  results  of  two  years'  investigation  of  the  drainage  statutes  and 
decisions  of  our  Court,  and  represents  the  suggestions  sent  in  by  drainage 
lawyers  from  all  over  the  State  in  response  to  questionnaires  asking  that 
defects  in  the  present  law  be  pointed  out.  It  was  framed  after  personal  con- 
ference with  a  score  of  leading  drainage  attorneys  from  all  sections  of  the 
State. 

The  Revised  Levee  Act  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  of  the  52nd  General 
Assembly  by  the  Committee  on  Drainage  as  Senate  Bill  No.  473.  It  passed 
the  Senate  on  June  13,  1921,  but  failed  of  passing  the  House  because  of  lack 
of  time.     Probably  it  will  be  presented  again  at  the  next  Assembly. 

For  the  convenience  of  those  wishing  to  make  detailed  study  of  the  Bill, 
an  outline  precedes  the  reprint,  and  a  cross  reference  table  facilitating  com- 
parison of  the  old  Levee  Act  and  the  proposed  revision  immediately  follows  it. 

Outline  of  Revised  Levee  Act 
ARTICLE  I— ORGANIZATION 

SECTION  PAGE 

1.  Title    277 

2.  Petition  organizing  drainage   districts 277 

3.  Notice  of  filing  petition 277 

4.  Jurisdiction   of   courts 278 

5.  Hearing — Commissioners — Preliminary  expenses   279 

6.  Organization  of  commissioners 280 

7.  Commissioners  to  examine  land — Report 280 

8.  Dismissal  of  proceedings    281 

9.  Surveys— Profiles,  etc 281 

10.  Alteration  of  plans — Boundaries — Proviso 281 

11.  Continuances — Filing  report — Notice — Contesting  confirmation 282 

12.  Confirmation — Review — Modifications    282 

13.  Referring  back  report — Adjournment 282 

14.  Order  of  confirmation  organizing  District 283 

15.  Nature  of  Drainage   District 283 

16.  Appeals  and  writs  of  error 284 

ARTICLE  II— THE  FIRST  ASSESSMENT 

17.  Agreements  as  to  damages — Assessment  roll 284 

18.  Assessments  and  obligations  of  corporate  authorities 285 

(274) 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED    LEVEE   ACT  275 


SECTION  PAGE 

18^.  Filing  of  roll — Notice  by  commissioners — Hearing  before  jury 286 

19.  Organization  of  jury — Examination  of  lands — Verdict  confirmation 286 

20.  Payment  of  benefits  in  installments 288 

21.  Installments— Interest    288 

22.  Certified  copy  of  assessments  delivered  to  commissioners 289 

23.  Treasurer— Bond 289 

24.  Duties— Term  of  office   .' 289 

25.  Commissioners — Notice  of  assessment 289 

26.  Delinquent  assessments   290 

27.  Payment  before   sale    291 

28.  Neglect  to  pay  assessment  or  installment 291 

29.  Act  to  be  liberally  construed 292 

ARTICLE  III— POWER  TO  BORROW  MONEY 

30.  Commissioners'  power  to  borrow  money 292 

31.  Bonds— How  attested  293 

ARTICLE  IV— CHANGES  IN   PLANS   AND  ASSESSMENTS; 

PAYMENT  OF  DAMAGES  AND  CONTRACTS 

FOR  WORK 

32.  Change  in  construction   .* 293 

32^4.  Abandonment  of  drain 294 

33.  Payment  of  damages   296 

34.  Letting  of  contracts — Advertising  for  bids 296 

35.  Credit  in  assessment  for  work 297 

ARTICLE  V— USE  OF  MONEY  AND  ADDITIONAL  ASSESSMENTS 

36.  Money  to  be  used  under  direction  of  court .297 

37.  Additional  assessments    297 

38.  Inclusion  of  void  or  unpaid  assessments   298 

39.  Proceedings   when    assessment   is   invalid •. 299 

40.  Progress  and  hearing  thereon 299 

ARTICLE  VI— MAINTENANCE  OF  WORK    AFTER  COMPLETION 

41.  Assessment  for  repairs    300 

42.  Annual  amount  of  benefits 300 

ARTICLE  VII— ANNEXING  LANDS  TO  ORGANIZE  DISTRICTS 

43.  Assessing  lands  benefited  outside  of  the  District 302 

44.  Use  of  drains  by  owners  within  District,  Voluntary  annexation  by  out- 

side owner    302 

ARTICLE  VIII— SUB-DISTRICTS 

45.  Constructing  additional  ditches — Proceedings  303 


276  LAND  DRAINAGE  IN  ILLINOIS 

ARTICLE  IX— DRAINAGE  COMMISSIONERS;    ORGANIZATION; 
POWERS;    DUTIES  AND  SUCCESSION 

SECTION  PAGE 

46.  Official  oath 305 

47.  Chairman — Secretary  , 305 

48.  Quorum    305 

49.  Drainage  record 305 

50.  Reports  of  commissioners   306 

51.  Bond  of  commissioners 306 

52.  Pay  of  commissioners 306 

53.  Power  of  commissioners  to  contract 307 

54.  Power  to  enter  lands  <  307 

55.  Powers  to  eminent  domain 307 

56.  Power  to  compel  opening  of  watercourse 308 

57.  Power  to  clean  out  watercourse — Meaning  of  ditch 308 

58.  Power  to  maintain  dredge  boats  308 

59.  Refusal  of  commissioners  to  perform  duty  309 

60.  Removal  of  commissioners * 309 

61.  Succession  of  commissioners  309 

62.  Change  to  single  commissioner 309 

ARTICLE  X— PENALTIES 

63.  Penalties  for  injuring  drain 310 

64.  Civil  liability  for  drainage 310 

ARTICLE  XI— MISCELLANEOUS 

65.  No  second  tax — Upper  district  benefited  by  lower 310 

66.  Outlet  drainage  districts 310 

67.  Mutual  drainage  districts 312 

68.  Lawful  to  include  in  district  all  lands  protected 313 

69.  Reorganization  of  other  districts  under  this  Act. 313 

REPEAL  AND  SAVING 

69^-2.  Repeal  of  levee  and  dredge  boat  acts 314 

70.  Construction   314 

71.  Unconstitutional  parts  of  Act  not  to  nullify  remainder 314 

72.  Jurisdiction  of  courts 315 

Reprint  of  the  Revised  Levee  Act 
Senate  Bill  No.  473  constitutes  the  Revised  Levee  Act.     It  is  herewith 
reprinted  from  the  official  copy  with  minor  changes. 

Senate  Bill  No.  473 

For  an  Act  to  provide  for  the  construction,  reparation  and  protection  of 
drains,  ditches  and  levees,  across  the  lands  of  others,  for  agricultural, 
sanitary  and  mining  purposes,  and  to  provide  for  the  organization  of 
drainage  districts,  and  to  revise  the  law  in  reference  thereto. 


STATUS  OF  THE  REVISED   LEVEE   ACT  277 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  People  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  repre- 
sented in  the  General  Assembly:  That  this  Act  shall  be  known  as  "The 
Revised  Levee  Act." 

ARTICLE  I. 

Organization. 

Sec.  2.  Petition  organizing  drainage  districts.]  Whenever  a  ma- 
jority of  the  owners  of  land  within  a  district  proposed  to  be  organized  who 
shall  have  arrived  at  a  lawful  age,  and  who  represent  at  least  one-third  in 
area  of  said  land,  or  whenever  one-third  or  more  of  the  owners  of  lands 
within  a  district  proposed  to  be  organized  who  shall  have,  arrived  at  lawful 
age  and  who  represent  a  major  portion  in  area  of  said  lands,  said  majorities 
being  hereinafter  termed  the  requisite  majority,  desire  to  construct  drains, 
ditches,  levees  or  other  work  to  be  known  in  this  Act  as  a  "drainage  and 
levee  district,"  or  "drainage  and  levee  work,"  across  the  lands  of  others  for 
agricultural,  sanitary  or  mining  purposes,  or  to  maintain  and  keep  in  repair 
any  such  drains,  ditches  or  levees  heretofore  constructed  under  any  law  of 
this  State,  or  to  establish  in  said  district  a  combined  system  of  drainage  or 
protection  from  overflow,  independent  of  levees,  for  said  purposes,  and  main- 
tain the  same  by  special  assessment  upon  the  property  benefited  thereby,  such 
owners  may  file  in  the  county  court  of  the  county  in  which  the  largest  acreage 
of  the  lands  so  proposed  to  be  organized  into  drainage  district  lies,  a  petition 
signed  by  the  requisite  number  of  land-owners  owning  the  required  area  of 
said  proposed  drainage  district  as  in  this  section  provided,  setting  forth : 

1.  The  proposed  name  of  the  said  drainage  district ; 

2.  The  necessity  of  the  same ; 

3.  A  general  description  of  the  lands  proposed  to  be  affected ; 

4.  A  general  description  of  the  proposed  work. 

5.  The  names  of  the  owners,  when  known ;  and 

6.  A  prayer  for  the  organization  of  a  drainage  district,  by  the  name 
and  boundaries  proposed  and  for  the  appointment  of  commissioners  under 
this  Act. 

Sec.  3.  Notice  of  filing  petition.]  Such  petition  being  filed,  the 
clerk  of  said  county  court,  or  circuit  court,  shall  cause  three  weeks'  notice 
of  the  presentation  and  filing  of  such  petition  to  be  given,  addressed  "to  all 
persons  interested," 

(a)  By  posting  notices  thereof  at  the  door  of  the  court  house  of  the 
county  or  counties  in  which  the  district  is  situated, 

(b)  And  in  at  least  ten  (10)  of  the  most  public  places  in  such  proposed 
district, 

(c)  And  also  by  publishing  a  copy  thereof  at  least  once  a  week  for 


278  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

three   (3)   successive  weeks  in  some  newspaper  published  in  the  county  in 
which  the  largest  acreage  of  the  proposed  district  lies. 
Such  notice  shall  state : 

1.  When  and  in  what  court  the  said  petition  was  and  is  filed, 

2.  The  boundaries  and  name  of  the  proposed  drainage  district  (but  no 
description  of  drains  or  ditches  need  be  given), 

3.  And  the  day  and  term  of  the  said  court  when  petitioners  will  ask  a 
hearing  of  said  petition. 

If  any  of  the  land-owners  of  said  district  are  not  residents  of  the  county 
or  counties  in  which  the  proposed  district  will  lie,  the  petition  shall  be  accom- 
panied by  or  shall  include  an  affidavit  giving  the  names  and  places  of  resi- 
dence of  such  non-residents,  if  known,  and  if  unknown,  stating  that,  upon 
diligent  inquiry  their  places  of  residence  cannot  be  ascertained ;  and  the  clerk 
shall  send  a  copy  of  the  notice  aforesaid  to  each  of  said  non-residents,  whose 
residence  is  known,  within  five  (5)  days  after  the  first  publication  of  the 
same.  The  certificate  of  the  clerk  or  publisher  or  the  affidavit  of  any  other 
credible  person  affixed  to  a  copy  of  said  notice  shall  be  sufficient  evidence  of 
the  mailing,  publication  and  posting,  respectively,  of  said  notices. 

Sec.  4.  Jurisdiction  of  courts.]  The  county  court  in  which  said 
petition  shall  be  filed  may  hear  the  petition  at  any  probate  or  common  law 
term,  and  may  determine  all  matters  pertaining  thereto,  and  all  subsequent 
proceedings  of  the  district  when  organized  under  this  Act,  and  may  adjourn 
the  hearing  from  time  to  time,  or  continue  the  case  for  want  of  sufficient 
notice,  or  other  good  cause.  The  court,  upon  application  of  the  petitioners, 
shall  permit  the  petition,  affidavit  and  orders  to  be  amended,  and  no  petitioner 
shall  have  the  right  to  withdraw  from  said  petition,  except  by  the  consent 
of  the  majority  of  the  other  petitioners  thereon,  or  where  it  shall  be  known 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  that  the  signature  of  the  petitioner  was  ob- 
tained by  fraud  or  misrepresentation. 

The  circuit  courts  of  this  State,  and  the  superior  courts  of  Cook  County, 
are  hereby  given  concurrent  jurisdiction  with  county  courts  in  all  other  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  the  organization  of  drainage  districts,  and  drainage  and 
levee  districts,  and  the  operation  thereof ;  and  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court 
shall,  when  the  proceeding  is  pending  in  such  court,  do  and  perform  in  the 
premises  each  and  all  duty  or  duties  required  by  the  clerk  of  the  county  court 
in  drainage  and  levee  matters,  when  such  proceedings  are  pending  therein; 
and  all  reports,  complaints,  oaths,  affirmations,  confirmations  and  returns,  in 
such  matters  required  to  be  made  to  the  county  courts  shall  be  made  in  the 
circuit  courts  of  this  State,  and  the  superior  courts  of  Cook  County,  when 
the  proceeding  is  pending  therein.  Wherever  the  words  "county  court", 
"court,"  "clerk  of  the  county  court,"  or  "clerk"  are  used  in  this  Act  they 
shall  be  held  to  refer  to  the  circuit  court,  superior  courts  of  Cook  County  or 
the  clerks  of  said  courts,  where  applicable. 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED    LEVEE    ACT  279 

The  several  judges  of  the  circuit  courts  of  this  State  and  the  superior 
courts  of  Cook  County  are  hereby  given  jurisdiction  in  vacation  to  make  all 
necessary  orders  and  hear  and  determine  any  and  all  matters  pertaining  to  the 
organization  of  drainage  districts  and  drainage  and  levee  districts,  and  the 
operation  thereof,  the  same  as  in  term  time.  Any  order  so  made  shall  be 
signed  by  the  judge  making  it  and  filed  and  entered  of  record  by  the  clerk 
of  the  court  in  which  the  proceeding  is  had,  and  from  the  date  of  such  filing- 
shall  have  like  force  and  effect  as  if  made  at  a  regular  term  of  such  court. 

Appeals  may  be  taken  from  the  final  orders,  judgments  and  decrees  of 
either  the  county,  or  the  superior  court  of  Cook  County  to  the  Supreme 
Court. 

Sec.  5.  Hearing — commissioners — preliminary  expenses.]  On  the 
hearing  of  any  petition  filed  under  the  provisions  of  this  Article,  all  parties 
through,  or  upon  whose  land  any  of  the  proposed  work  may  be  constructed, 
or  whose  lands  may  be  damaged  or  benefited  thereby,  may  appear  and  con- 
test the  necessity  or  utility  of  the  proposed  work,  or  any  part  thereof,  and 
the  contestants  and  petitioners  may  offer  any  competent  evidence  in  regard 
thereto. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  court  to  hear  and  determine  two  things : 

1.  Whether  the  petition  contains  the  signatures  of  the  requisite  ma- 
jority of  land-owners  (1/3  adult  owners  owning  majority  in  area  or  majority 
of  adult  owners  owning  1/3  of  area),  and 

2.  Whether  the  proposed  drains,  ditches,  levees,  or  other  works  are 
necessary  or  will  be  useful  for  agricultural,  sanitary  or  mining  purposes. 

The  affidavit  of  any  three  (3)  or  more  of  the  signers  of  the  petition 
that  they  have  examined  the  petition  and  are  acquainted  with  the  locality 
of  said  district,  and  that  said  petition  is  signed  either 

(a)  By  a  majority  of  such  owners  who  are  of  lawful  age,  who  repre- 
sent at  least  one-third  (1/3)  in  area  of  the  lands,  or 

(b)  By  at  least  one-third  of  the  owners  of  land  who  are  of  lawful  age 
and  who  represent  a  major  part  in  area  of  the  lands  in  the  proposed  district, 
may  be  taken  by  the  court  as  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  facts  stated  therein, 
or  evidence  under  oath  of  such  facts  may  be  heard  in  open  court  or  by  the 
affidavit  or  affirmation  of  any  person  properly  taken,  giving  the  age  of  such 
party,  his  or  her  ownership  of  lands  to  be  named  therein,  and  such  oath, 
affirmation  or  affidavit  shall  be  sufficient  evidence  to  the  courts  of  such  facts. 

Provided,  That  all  deeds  made  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  or  defeat- 
ing the  prayer  of  said  petition,  not  made  in  good  faith  and  for  a  valuable 
consideration,  shall  be  taken  and  held  to  be  in  fraud  of  the  provisions  of  this 
Act,  and  the  holders  thereof  shall  not  be  considered  as  owners  thereof. 

An  estate  owned  by  tenants  in  common  or  joint  tenants  and  an  estate  in 
which  there  is  a  life  interest  and  a  reversion  or  remainder  in  fee  shall  be 
regarded  as  one  estate  and  all  the  owners  thereof  shall  together  be  considered 


280  LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

as  one  owner  in  the  organization  of  a  district,  or  for  other  purposes  under  the 
provisions  of  this  Act.  A  majority  of  such  parties  shall  control  the  manner 
in  which  a  tract  of  land  shall  be  counted. 

If  the  court  finds  that  the  petition  is  not  signed  by  the  requisite  majority, 
or  if  the  court  finds  that  no  drainage  or  reclamation  work  is  necessary,  the 
petition  shall  be  dismissed  at  the  cost  of  petitioners. 

If  the  court  after  hearing  all  competent  evidence  shall  determine  that 
the  petition  is  signed  by  the  requisite  majority,  the  court  shall  so  find,  and 
such  finding  shall  be  conclusive  upon  the  land-owners  of  such  district  that 
they  have  assented  to  and  accepted  the  provisions  of  this  Act  and  any  amend- 
ments that  may  be  made  thereto ;  and  if  the  court  further  determines  that 
the  proposed  ditches,  levees  or  other  works,  are  necessary  or  will  be  useful 
for  the  reclamation  of  the  lands  proposed  to  be  drained  thereby  for  agricul- 
tural, sanitary,  or  mining  purposes,  the  court  shall  so  find,  and  appoint  three 
(3)  competent  persons  as  commissioners,  each  of  whom  shall  hold  office 
until  his  successor  is  appointed,  as  hereafter  provided,  to  lay  out  and  plan 
such  proposed  work  and  for  such  purposes  they  are  authorized  to  borrow  the 
necessary  funds. 

Sec.  6.  The  commissioners  shall  take  an  oath,  organize,  give  bonds  and 
conform  as  far  as  possible  to  the  provisions  of  Article  IX  herein. 

Sec.  7.  Commissioners  to  examine  land — report.]  Immediately 
after  their  appointment  the  commissioners  shall  examine  all  the  land  proposed 
to  be  drained  or  protected  and  the  lands  over  or  upon  which  the  work  is 
proposed  to  be  constructed  and  determine : 

First — If  drainage  and  levee  work  is  proposed  in  the  petition,  whether 
the  proposed  work  and  the  proposed  location  thereof  is  in  all  respects  proper 
and  feasible;  and  if  not,  what  is  so. 

Second — What  lands  will  be  injured  by  the  proposed  work,  and  the 
probable  aggregate  amount  of  all  damages  such  lands  will  sustain  by  reason 
of  the  laying  out  and  construction  of  such  work. 

Third — What  lands  will  be  benefited  by  the  construction  of  the  proposed 
work,  and  whether  the  aggregate  amount  of  benefits  will  equal  or  exceed  the 
cost  of  constructing  such  work,  including  all  incidental  expenses,  costs  of 
proceedings  and  damages. 

Fourth — Whether  the  proposed  district,  as  set  out  in  the  petition  filed, 
will  embrace  all  the  lands  that  may  be  damaged  or  benefited  by  the  proposed 
work;  and  if  not,  to  report  what  additional  lands  will  be  so  affected;  or 
whether  it  will  include  lands  that  will  not  be  benefited,  and  are  not  necessary 
to  be  included  in  the  district  for  any  purpose,  describing  such  lands,  if  any. 

Fifth — The  probable  cost  of  the  work  recommended,  including  all  inci- 
dental expenses,  and  the  cost  of  the  proceedings  therefor. 

Sixth — The  probable  annual  cost  of  keeping  the  same  in  repair  after 
the  work  is  completed. 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED   LEVEE    ACT  281 

Sec.  8.  Dismissal  of  proceedings].  If  the  commissioners  shall  find 
that  such  costs,  expenses  and  damages  are  more  than  equal  to  the  benefits 
which  may  inure  to  the  lands  in  general  of  said  district,  by  reason  of  the 
proposed  work,  they  shall  so  report,  and  the  proceedings  shall  be  dismissed 
at  the  cost  of  the  petitioners,  including  all  expenses  lawfully  incurred  by  the 
commissioners. 

Sec.  9.  Surveys,  profiles,  etc.]  If  the  commissioners  shall  find  that 
the  proposed  work,  or  such  portion  of  the  same  as  will  be  satisfactory  to  the 
petitioners  and  work  of  a  like  nature  on  lands  they  propose  to  annex  to  said 
district,  can  be  done  at  a  cost  and  expense  not  exceeding  such  benefits,  they 
shall  proceed  to  have  the  proper  surveys,  profiles,  plats,  plans  and  specifica- 
tions thereof  made,  and  they  shall  report  the  starting  point,  route  and  termini 
of  the  levees,  ditches,  or  drains,  or  other  work,  and  the  dimensions  of  the 
same,  and  what  ditches  or  parts  thereof,  should  be  open  or  tiled,  and  the 
size  of  tile,  if  any  is  required,  and  shall  report  their  conclusions  and  a  copy 
of  such  surveys,  profiles,  plats,  plans  and  specifications  to  the  court  which 
appointed  them. 

Sec.  10.  Alteration  of  plans — boundaries — proviso.]  The  commis- 
sioners shall  not  be  confined  to  the  point  of  commencement,  route  or  termini 
of  the  drains  or  ditches  or  to  the  number,  extent  or  the  size,  or  the  manner 
of  constructing  of  the  same,  or  the  location,  plan  or  extent  of  any  levee, 
ditch  or  other  work  to  that  proposed  by  the  petitioners,  but  shall  locate,  de- 
sign, lay  out,  and  plan  the  same  in  such  manner  as  they  shall  think  will  drain 
or  protect  the  petitioners'  lands  with  the  least  damage  and  greatest  benefit 
to  all  lands  to  be  affected  thereby ;  and  any  plans,  ditches,  drains  or  other  work 
proposed  by  the  commissioners  may,  on  the  application  of  any  person  inter- 
ested, or  the  commissioners,  be  altered  or  additional  drains  or  other  work 
shall  be  established  by  order  of  the  court  in  such  manner  as  shall  appear  to 
the  court  to  be  just.  If  the  commissioners  find  that  the  proposed  district,  as 
described  in  the  petition  filed,  will  not  embrace  all  the  lands  that  will  be 
benefited  by  the  proposed  work,  or  that  it  will  include  lands  that  will  not  be 
benefited,  and  not  necessary  to  be  included  in  said  district  for  any  purpose, 
they  may  extend  or  contract  the  boundaries  of  the  proposed  district,  so  as 
to  include  or  exclude  all  such  lands,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  the  boundaries 
adopted  and  reported  by  said  commissioners  may  at  any  time  before  the 
court  declares  the  district  established,  upon  the  application  of  the  commis- 
sioners, or  of  any  person  interested,  be  altered  by  the  court  in  such  manner 
as  shall  appear  to  the  court  to  be  just;  and  the  court  may  change  the  name 
of  the  district  or  proposed  district  at  the  same  time  in  the  same  order  estab- 
lishing a  drainage  district:  Provided,  the  alteration  of  boundaries  as  afore- 
said shall  not  have  the  effect  of  so  far  enlarging  or  contracting  the  proposed 
district  that  the  petitioners  will  not  longer  constitute  a  majority  of  the  adult 
owners  of  the  lands  in  said  proposed  district,  who  represent  at  least  one- 


282  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

third  of  its  area,  or  who  constitute  at  least  one-third  of  the  adult  land-owners 
of  the  lands  therein  situated  who  represent  a  major  portion  in  area  of  the 
lands  therein. 

Sec.  11.  Continuances — filing  report — notice  where  additional 
lands  embraced  contesting  confirmation  of  report.]  After  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  commissioners  as  provided  in  Section  five  (5)  of  this  act, 
the  cause  shall  be  continued  by  the  court  to  a  day  for  filing  of  their  report, 
and  in  the  event  said  commissioners  are  not  ready  to  report  on  the  day  fixed, 
they  may  appear  before  the  court  and  obtain  a  continuance  or  continuances 
until  said  report  is  ready  to  be  filed,  but  such  continuance  or  continuances 
shall  in  each  instance  be  to  a  day  certain  and  all  persons  interested  shall  take 
notice  of  any  such  continuance  or  continuances:  Provided,  that  if  for  any 
reason  the  said  report  is  not  filed  and  no  order  of  continuance  is  entered, 
the  court  shall  not  thereby  lose  jurisdiction,  but  at  any  time  thereafter  when 
said  report  is  completed  the  commissioners  may  present  the  same  to  the 
court,  and  the  court  shall  cause  notice  to  be  given  in  the  same  manner  and 
for  the  same  time,  as  provided  in  section  3  of  this  Act  of  a  day  to  be  fixed 
by  the  court  when  said  report  shall  be  heard,  and  the  same  proceedings  shall 
be  had  on  said  date  as  if  the  proper  order  for  continuance  had  been  made. 
Upon  said  report  being  filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  court  appointing  such 
commissioners,  the  court  shall  fix  a  day  not  less  than  ten  days  nor  more  than 
four  weeks  from  the  filing  thereof,  for  the  hearing  thereon :  Provided,  that 
in  case  the  commissioners  shall  recommend  that  additional  lands  be  embraced 
in  the  proposed  district,  the  owner  or  owners  of  such  lands  shall  be  given 
notice  by  the  commissioners,  in  the  manner  and  for  the  time  provided  by 
section  three  (3)  of  this  Act,  of  the  hearing  on  said  report.  At  the  time  of 
the  hearing  all  persons  may  appear  and  contest  the  confirmation  of  said  re- 
port or  show  that  additional  drains,  ditches  or  other  work  should  be  con- 
structed, or  that  the  report  ought  to  be  modified  in  any  particular,  and  may 
offer  any  competent  evidence  in  support  thereof ;  and  the  said  report  of  said 
commissioners  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  facts  therein  set  forth. 

Sec.  12.  Confirmation — review — modification.]  If  upon  the  hear- 
ing the  court  shall  be  of  the  opinion  that  the  objections  are  not  well  taken, 
or  if  no  objection  shall  be  made,  it  shall  order  the  confirmation  thereof.  If  it 
shall  appear  that  additional  ditches,  drains  and  outlets  not  named  in  the 
report,  are  necessary,  or  that  the  report  ought  to  be  modified  in  any  par- 
ticular, and  the  court  shall  be  sufficiently  informed  in  the  premises,  it  shall 
modify  the  same  to  conform  to  the  equities  in  the  premises ;  or  if  not  suffi- 
ciently informed,  it  shall  order  the  commissioners  to  review  and  correct  their 
report;  and  may  make  specific  directions  in  what  respect  they  shall  reform 
their  report;  and  the  court  may  make  all  necessary  orders  in  the  premises, 
either  for  the  continuance  of  the  hearing  or  other  lawful  purposes. 

Sec.   13.     Referring  report — adjournment.]      If  the  report  be  re- 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED    LEVEE    ACT 


283 


ferred  back  to  the  commissioners  for  amendment,  the  court  shall  fix  a  day 
when  the  commissioners  shall  again  present  their  report,  in  which  case  the 
hearing  shall  stand  adjourned  to  that  day,  and  no  further  notice  shall  be 
required  thereof. 

Sec.  14.  Order  of  confirmation.]  If,  after  hearing  all  objections, 
if  any,  to  the  report  of  the  commissioners,  and  all  applications,  if  any,  to 
annex  other  lands  to  the  proposed  district,  the  court  finds  that  a  drainage  or 
levee  district  should  be  organized,  the  plat  of  the  same  shall  be  recorded 
and  an  order  be  made  according  to  the  findings  of  the  court,  substantially 
as  follows : 

County  Court  of County, Term,  A.  D.  19 .  . . 

In  the  matter  of  the  petition  of  (here  insert  names  of  the  petitioners.)     This 

day  the  report  of commissioners  heretofore 

appointed  by  this  court  to  examine  the  lands  proposed  to  be  drained  or  pro- 
tected and  the  lands  over  which  the  work  is  proposed  to  be  constructed  (if 
additional  lands  are  recommended  by  the  commissioners  to  be  brought  into  the 
proposed  district,  insert  here  the  giving  of  notice  to  the  owners  of  such  land, 
as  required  in  section  eleven  of  this  Act)  having  been  filed,  and  said  report 
having  been  set  down  for  hearing  in  the  manner  required  by  law,  and  the 
court  having  duly  examined  said  report  and  having  heard  evidence  concerning 
the  same,  and  considered  all  objections  to  the  same,  it  is  ordered  by  the  court 
that  the  report  of  said  commissioners  (or,  if  said  report  has  been  modified 
by  the  court,  as  modified  by  the  court)  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  confirmed ; 
and  the  court  further  finds  that  the  proposed  work  in  said  petition  to  be  done 
will  be  useful  for  agricultural,  sanitary  or  mining  purposes  to  the  owners  of 
land  within  said  proposed  district;  and  the  court  also  finds  that  the  persons 
who  have  signed  said  petition  are  of  lawful  age  and  are  a  majority  of  the 
adult  land  owners,  representing  at  least  one-third  in  area  (or  one-third  of 
the  adult  land  owners  owning  a  major  portion  as  the  case  may  be)  of  the 
land  to  be  affected  by  such  proposed  work.  And  the  court  further  finds 
that  the   said   drainage   district   of   the  corporate   name   mentioned   in   said 

petition,  viz bounded  as  follows, is 

duly  established  as  provided  by  law. 


County  Judge. 

Sec.  14a.  If  the  court  finds  that  a  drainage  or  levee  district  should  not 
be  organized,  the  proceedings  shall  be  dismissed  at  the  cost  of  the  petitioners, 
said  costs  to  include  all  legitimate  expenses  and  obligations  incurred  by  the 
commissioners. 

Sec.  15.  Nature  of  drainage  district.]  And  upon  entering  such 
order  of  record  as  provided  in  Section  14  said  district  is  hereby  declared  by 
law  to  be  organized  as  a  drainage  district  under  the  name  mentioned  in  the 
above  order,  and  with  the  boundaries  fixed  by  the  order  confirming  the  re- 


284  LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

port  of  the  said  commissioners,  and  said  district  is  hereby  declared  to  be  a 
body  politic  and  corporate,  by  the  name  mentioned  in  said  order  of  court, 
with  the  right  to  sue  and  be  sued,  and  to  have  perpetual  succession,  and  may 
adopt  and  use  a  corporate  seal;  and  the  commissioners  appointed  as  afore- 
said and  their  successors  in  office  shall,  from  the  entry  of  such  order  of  con- 
firmation, constitute  the  corporate  authorities  of  such  drainage  district,  and 
shall  exercise  the  functions  conferred  upon  them  by  law. 

Sec.  16.  Appeals  or  writ  of  error.]  Said  order  shall  be  final,  and 
separate  or  joint  appeals  and  writs  of  error  may  be  taken  to  the  Supreme 
Court  by  the  parties  affected  thereby:  Provided,  the  granting  of  an  appeal 
or  writ  of  error  to  one  or  more  persons,  or  the  reversal  of  said  order  upon 
such  appeal  or  writ  of  error  by  such  person  or  persons  separately  or  jointly 
shall  not  impair  nor  invalidate  said  organization  as  to  all  other  persons  not 
appealing  nor  suing  out  such  writs,  nor  shall  such  appeal  or  writ  of  error 
delay  the  work  or  proceedings  so  far  as  it  affects  the  lands  of  such  other 
persons.  Nor  shall  it  be  a  valid  ground  of  objection  on  the  part  of  any  land 
owner  upon  said  hearing,  or  upon  an  appeal  from  said  order,  or  upon  any 
writ  of  error  attacking  the  said  order,  that  any  owner  of  other  land  has  not 
received  sufficient  notice  of  the  said  proceedings,  or  that  the  said  order  is 
invalid  as  to  the  said  owner  of  other  lands;  but  such  other  owners  and 
lands  may  be  thereafter  brought  into  and  included  in  the  said  district,  and 
assessed  therein  under  the  provisions  of  sections  thirty-nine  (39),  forty  (40), 
and  forty-three  (43)  of  this  Act,  when  such  other  lands  should  properly 
be  included  in  said  district. 

ARTICLE  II. 

The  First  Assessment 

Sec.  17.  Agreements  as  to  damages — assessment  roll.]  After  the 
order  provided  for  in  Section  14  shall  have  been  signed  the  commissioners 
shall  proceed  to  acquire  the  right  of  way  and  release  of  damages  for  the 
construction  of  the  proposed  work,  by  agreement  with  the  land  owners,  in- 
cluding the  corporate  authorities  of  any  public  or  private  corporation  affected, 
so  far  as  they  may  be  able  to  agree  with  said  land  owners,  and  to  make  out 
an  assessment  roll  in  which  shall  be  set  down  in  proper  columns : 

1.  The  names  of  the  owners,  when  known. 

2.  A  description  of  the  premises  affected,  in  words  or  figures,  or  both, 
as  shall  be  most  convenient. 

3.  The  number  of  acres  in  each  tract. 

4.  And  if  benefits  are  assessed  against  the  same,  the  amount  of  the 
same  against  each  tract  under  a  column  headed  "benefits,"  provided  that  no 
assessment  of  benefits  shall  be  made  against  lands  taken  for  right  of  way. 

5.  If  damages  are  allowed  for  lands  taken,  the  amount  of  the  same 


STATUS  OF   THE  REVISED   LEVEE   ACT  285 

against  each  tract  shall  be  set  forth  under  a  column  headed  "Damages,"  pro- 
vided, that  damages  to  lands  not  taken  may  be  set  off  against  benefits  and 
the  net  amount  inserted  under  the  columns  headed  "Benefits"  or  "Damages," 
as  the  case  may  be. 

The  commissioners  shall,  when  directed  by  the  court,  make  an  assess- 
ment of  the  "annual  amount"  of  benefits  which  each  tract  will  sustain  by 
keeping  said  levees,  ditches  or  other  work  in  repair,  and  to  maintain  in 
operation  pumping  plants,  if  any  there  be  in  the  district,  all  of  which  shall 
be  known  as  "the  commissioners'  roll  of  assessments  of  benefits  and  dam- 
ages." 

Sec.  18.  Assessment  and  obligations  of  corporate  authorities.] 
The  commissioners  in  said  "commissioners'  roll  of  assessments  of  benefits 
and  damages"  shall  apportion  to  any  public  or  corporate  road  or  railroad, 
or  to  the  streets  and  alleys  of  any  municipal  corporation  in  the  district  its 
or  their  respective  share  of  the  cost  and  expenses  in  proportion  to  benefits 
that  will  accrue  to  said  corporation,  including  municipal  corporations,  and 
also  set  forth  the  damages,  if  any,  to  said  corporations  and  give  them  the 
same  notice,  and  at  the  same  time,  as  shall  be  given  to  private  individuals, 
and  the  matter  of  the  amount  of  such  assessments  of  benefits  and  damages 
shall  be  submitted  to  the  same  jury  in  the  same  manner  as  the  benefits  and 
damages  to  accrue  to  private  individuals  and  the  said  jury  shall  proceed  to 
assess  the  damages  and  benefits  in  like  manner  as  to  lands  of  individuals. 

In  case  such  assessment  is  made  against  any  township  or  road  district, 
the  commissioner  of  highways  of  such  town  or  road  district  shall  cause  the 
same  to  be  levied  and  paid  to  said  drainage  district  in  the  manner  provided 
by  the  road  and  bridge  law  of  this  State. 

No  credit  shall  be  given,  nor  damages  allowed  to  any  railroad  or  other 
private  corporation  or  individual  on  account  of  the  expense  of  constructing, 
erecting  or  repairing  any  bridge,  embankment  or  grade,  culvert  or  other 
work  of  the  road  or  right  of  way  of  such  corporations  or  persons  crossing 
any  ditch  or  drain,  constructed  in  the  line  of  any  natural  depression,  channel 
or  water  course;  but  the  corporate  authorities  of  said  railroad  or  other 
private  corporation  or  individual  are  hereby  required,  at  their  own  expense 
to  construct  such  bridge,  culvert  or  other  work  or  to  replace  any  bridge  or 
culvert  temporarily  removed  by  the  commissioners  in  doing  the  work  of 
such  district.  Full  power  and  authority  is  hereby  given  the  drainage  com- 
missioners to  remove  such  bridges  or  culverts  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  if 
they  in  their  judgment  find  it  necessary. 

The  cost  of  building,  enlarging  or  replacing  any  highway  bridge  across 
the  open  ditches  of  the  district,  when  occasioned  by  the  work  of  the  drainage 
district,  whether  in  a  natural  water  course  or  not,  shall  be  paid  by  the  drain- 
age district. 

When  said  bridges  are  so  replaced  or  built,  the  said  town,  road  district 


286  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

or  county  or  other  public  highway  authorities  shall  thereafter,  at  their  own 
expense  maintain  such  bridge,  culvert  or  other  work.  Any  bridge  or  culvert 
temporarily  removed  by  the  commissioners  in  doing  the  work  of  said  district 
shall  be  replaced  at  the  cost  of  the  drainage  district. 

Sec.  18^2.  Filing  of  roll — notice  by  commissioners — hearing  be- 
fore jury.]  Upon  the  filing  of  the  "commissioners'  roll  of  assessments  of 
benefits  and  damages,"  with  the  clerk  of  the  court,  the  commissioners  shall 
give  ten  days'  notice  in  the  manner  provided  by  section  three  (3)  of  this 
Act,  of  the  time  and  place  when  and  where  they  will  appear  before  the  same 
court  in  which  the  petition  was  filed  for  the  purpose  of  having  a  jury  im- 
paneled in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  section  six  (6)  of  an  Act 
entitled,  "An  Act  to  provide  for  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain," 
approved  April  10,  1872,  in  force  July  1,  1872,  and  for  the  hearing  before 
said  jury,  upon  all  questions  of  benefits  and  damages,  to  any  of  the  land  in 
said  district. 

Upon  the  hearing,  the  commissioners  and  all  persons  interested  in  the 
lands  to  be  affected,  shall  have  the  same  right  of  challenge  of  jurors  as  in 
other  civil  cases  in  the  County  Courts  of  this  State.  When  said  jury  is 
selected  they  shall  be  sworn,  to  faithfully  and  impartially  perform  the  duties 
required  of  them  to  the  best  of  their  understanding  and  judgment,  and  to 
make  their  assessments  of  benefits  or  of  damages,  or  damages  and  benefits, 
as  the  case  may  be,  according  to  law;  and  thereupon  said  commissioners, 
on  behalf  of  said  district,  shall  present  and  file  as  their  claim  against  the 
several  land  owners  and  tracts  of  land,  the  assessment  roll  provided  for  in 
Section  seventeen  (17)  of  this  Act,  which  shall  make  out  a  prima  facie  case 
for  the  commissioners,  and  all  parties  to  said  proceedings  shall  be  permitted 
to  present  to  said  jury  their  case  in  person  or  by  counsel,  and  offer  any 
competent  evidence  as  to  the  amount  of  benefits  which  any  land  in  said  dis- 
trict will  receive  by  reason  of  said  proposed  work,  or  as  to  the  damages  to 
land  taken  or  damaged  thereby  over  which  the  right  of  way  has  not  been 
obtained,  and  after  such  evidence  shall  be  presented  and  argument  of  counsel 
heard,  the  court  shall  instruct  them  as  to  the  law  and  form  of  their  verdict. 

Sec.  19.  Organization  of  jury — examination  of  lands — verdict — 
confirmation.]  And  thereupon  said  jury  shall  proceed  to  select  a  foreman 
and  clerk  from  said  jury,  and  in  charge  of  said  foreman  shall,  in  case  any 
party  in  interest  shall  so  request,  proceed  to  examine  the  lands,  railroads, 
streets,  alleys  and  public  highways  to  be  affected  by  the  proposed  work. 

In  making  such  assessment,  the  jury  shall  award  and  assess  the  damages 
and  benefits  in  favor  of  and  against  each  tract  separately,  in  the  proportion 
in  which  such  tract  of  land  will  be  damaged  or  benefited,  and  in  no  case 
shall  any  tract  of  land  be  assessed  for  benefits  in  a  greater  amount  than  its 
proportionate  share  of  the  estimated  cost  of  the  work  and  expenses  of  the 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED    LEVEE    ACT  287 

proceeding,  nor  in  a  greater  amount  than  it  will  be  benefited  by  the  pro- 
posed work  according  to  the  best  judgment  of  the  jury. 

The  jury  shall  ascertain  to  the  best  of  their  ability  and  judgment  the 
benefits  which  will  accrue  to  the  lands,  railroads,  streets,  alleys  and  public 
highways  to  be  affected  by  the  said  proposed  work,  and  the  damages  to  the 
lands  taken  or  damaged  thereby,  over  which  the  right  of  way  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  said  proposed  work  had  not  been  obtained  and,  when  directed 
by  the  court,  the  jury  may  also  ascertain  the  "annual  amount"  of  benefits 
which  each  tract  will  sustain  by  keeping  said  levee,  ditches  or  other  work  in 
repair,  and  said  jury  shall  make  out  their  verdict  in  which  shall  be  set  down 
in  proper  columns  the  names  of  the  owners  when  known,  a  description  of 
the  premises  to  be  affected,  in  words  and  figures,  or  both,  as  shall  be  most 
convenient,  the  number  of  acres  in  each  tract  and  the  amount  of  benefits 
assessed,  if  any,  and  the  amount  of  damages  allowed,  if  any,  against  each  tract, 
railroad,  public  highway,  or  municipal  corporation;  also,  when  required,  the 
amount  of  "annual  benefits,"  if  any,  which  each  tract  will  sustain  by  keep- 
ing said  levees,  ditches  or  other  work  in  repair,  and  in  finding  such  verdict 
they  shall  take  into  consideration  their  view  of  the  premises  as  evidence  (if 
such  view  shall  have  been  requested  by  any  party  in  interest)  and  consider 
it  with  the  other  testimony  offered  in  the  case  and  allowed  by  the  court, 
which  verdict  when  so  completed  shall  produce  the  total  sum  of  the  esti-' 
mated  cost  of  the  proposed  work  and  the  proceedings  incident  to  the  same, 
together  with  the  annual  amount  of  benefits  which  the  lands  will  sustain  by 
keeping  said  levees,  ditches  or  other  work  in  repair,  when  required,  and  the 
amount  of  damages  allowed,  and  said  verdict  shall  then  be  signed  by  the 
jury  and  filed  in  the  court,  and  shall  be  taken  and  held  to  be  the  verdict  of 
the  jury  upon  all  questions  of  benefits  and  damages  arising  in  the  pro- 
ceedings. 

The  court  shall,  if  necessary,  continue  said  cause  to  a  day  certain  for  the 
report  of  the  verdict  of  said  jury,  and  if  said  jury  are  not  ready  to  file  their 
verdice  on  the  day  fixed,  said  cause  may  be  continued  from  time  to  time 
until  they  have  completed  their  verdict  and  have  returned  the  same  to  the 
court  and  all  persons  interested  shall  take  notice  of  the  time  of  filing  and 
making  said  report  by  the  jury. 

The  court  may  cause  to  be  prepared  and  submit  to  said  jury  a  form  for 
their  said  verdict,  including  names  of  the  owners  and  descriptions  of  the 
tracts  to  be  affected,  including  the  railroads,  public  highways  and  municipal 
corporations,  with  blanks  for  the  said  jury  to  fill  with  the  amounts  of  benefits 
and  damages  as  they  shall  find,  and  when  completed  the  same  may  be  placed 
in  form  by  the  court  in  the  presence  of  said  jury,  or  the  said  jury  may  be 
recalled  at  any  time  after  being  discharged  to  correct  any  errors  or  omissions 
therein. 

When  said  verdict  is  finallv  filed  the  court  shall  confirm  said  verdict  and 


288  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

enter  up  judgment  upon  said  verdict,  and  cause  the  same  to  be  spread  upon 
the  records,  and  such  judgment  and  verdict  shall  be  a  lien  upon  such  lands 
after  the  said  judgment,  until  paid.  Appeals  and  writs  of  error  shall  be 
allowed  therefrom  as  in  cases  of  appeals  from  or  writs  of  error  to  county- 
courts  in  proceedings  for  the  sale  of  lands  for  taxes  or  special  assessments : 
Provided,  that  the  granting  of  an  appeal  in  any  one  or  more  cases,  to  one 
or  more  persons  shall  not  operate  to  defer  the  collection  of  the  judgment  in 
other  cases,  but  the  collection  in  other  cases  shall  proceed  as  if  no  appeal 
had  been  taken.  When  said  appeals  are  decided,  if  the  judgment  of  said 
county  court  shall  be  affirmed,  or  upon  said  case  being  remanded  for  a  new 
trial,  if  judgment  shall  be  in  favor  of  said  district,  the  county  court  shall 
order  the  judgment  so  rendered  to  be  made  a  part  of  said  judgment  not 
appealed  from,  and  the  same  shall  be  collected  as  if  no  appeal  had  been 
taken. 

Sec.  20.  Payment  of  benefits  in  installments.]  At  the  time  of 
confirming  such  assessments,  it  shall  be  competent  for  the  court  to  order  the 
assessment  of  benefits  to  be  paid  in  installments  of  such  amounts,  and  at 
such  times  as  will  be  convenient  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  proposed 
work  or  payment  of  bonds  that  may  be  issued ;  otherwise  the  whole  amount 
of  such  assessment  shall  be  payable  immediately  upon  such  confirmation. 
The  assessments  or  installments  thereof  shall  draw  interest  at  the  rate  of 
six  per  cent  per  annum  from  the  time  of  confirmation  until  paid ;  but  if  any 
owner  elects,  he  may  pay  the  whole  amount  of  the  assessments,  and  interest, 
if  any,  accrued  against  his  land,  before  it  becomes  due:  Provided,  such 
payment  is  made  before  any  bonds  are  issued  by  the  district :  And,  provided, 
further,  that  where  the  court  has,  by  order,  directed  the  whole  or  a  part  of 
the  assessment  of  benefits  to  be  paid  in  deferred  installments,  that  the  court 
may,  by  order,  direct  that  the  interest  on  such  deferred  installments  shall  be 
collected  yearly  in  advance.  Said  assessments  shall  be  a  lien  upon  the  lands 
assessed  as  other  taxes,  and  such  lien  shall  continue  until  said  assessments  are 
paid;  and  the  proceedings  of  the  county  court  of  the  county  in  which  said 
lands  are  situated,  shall  be  sufficient  notice  of  such  lien.  When  an  assess- 
ment against  any  tract  of  land  has  been  fully  paid,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  treasurer  of  such  district  to  execute  and  deliver  to  the  owner  of  such 
land,  a  release  in  full,  which  shall  discharge  such  owner  from  all  further 
liability  to  pay  the  same.  The  release  may  be  recorded  in  the  recorder's 
office  of  the  county  where  such  lands  are  situated. 

Sec.  21.  Installments — interest.]  In  case  the  assessments  for  bene- 
fits shall  be  payable  in  installments,  such  installments  shall  draw  interest  at 
six  per  cent  per  annum,  payable  annually  from  the  time  of  confirmation  of 
the  assessment  roll  until  they  are  paid,  and  such  interest  may  be  collected 
and  enforced  as  part  of  the  assessment :  Provided,  that  in  any  district  where 
no  bonds  or  interest-bearing  obligations,  at  the  time  of  such  collection  of 


STATUS    OF    THE    REVISED    LEVEE    ACT  289 

interest  shall  have  been  issued  or  are  outstanding  against  such  installments 
of  assessments  upon  which  said  interest  shall  be  collected,  the  commissioners 
of  such  district  may,  under  the  direction  of  the  county  court,  use  the  money 
so  collected  as  interest  for  the  construction  or  maintenance  of  any  ditches, 
drains  or  levees  or  other  work  or  any  necessary  expenses  of  said  district  or 
any  indebtedness  of  said  district. 

Sec.  22.  Certified  copy  of  assessment  delivered  to  commissioners.] 
Immediately  after  the  entry  of  such  confirmation  by  the  court,  the  clerk  shall 
make  out  and  certify  to  the  commissioners  a  copy  of  such  assessment  roll, 
and  shall  also  make  out  and  deliver  to  the  commissioners  separate  copies  of 
such  parts  thereof,  pertaining  to  the  land  situated  in  other  counties,  which 
shall  be  recorded  in  the  recorder's  office  of  the  respective  counties,  in  which 
the  lands  are  situated,  and  shall  be  notice  of  the  lien  thereof  to  all  persons. 

Sec.  23.  Treasurer — bond.]  The  commissioners  shall,  after  the  con- 
firmation of  said  assessment  roll,  and  before  any  collections  shall  have  been 
made  by  them,  appoint  a  treasurer,  who  shall  not  be  one  of  their  number, 
who  shall  execute  a  bond  to  the  people  of  the  State  of  Illinois  for  the  use  of 
all  persons  interested,  in  a  sum  of  not  less  than  twice  the  amount  of  assess- 
ments that  may  be  in  his  hands  during  his  term  of  office,  with  such  sureties 
as  may  be  approved  of  by  the  judge  of  said  court,  conditioned  for  the  faithful 
performance  of  his  duties  as  treasurer  of  said  drainage  district,  and  that 
he  will  safely  and  faithfully  account  for  all  money  that  by  virtue  of  his  said 
office  shall  come  to  his  hands.  Which  said  bond  when  approved  by  the  court 
shall  be  kept  and  preserved  by  said  commissioners,  and  suits  may  be  main- 
tained upon  the  same  by  them  upon  any  breach  of  its  conditions. 

Sec.  24.  Duties — term  of  office.]  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  treas- 
urer to  keep  proper  books  to  be  furnished  him  by  the  commissioners,  in  which 
he  shall  keep  an  accurate  account  of  all  moneys  received  by  him,  and  of  all 
disbursements  of  the  same;  he  shall  pay  out  no  money,  except  upon  the 
order  of  a  majority  of  the  commissioners,  and  shall  carefully  preserve  on 
file  all  orders  for  the  payment  of  money  given  him  by  the  commissioners,  and 
shall  turn  over  all  books,  papers,  vouchers,  moneys  and  other  property  be- 
longing to  and  in  his  hands,  as  such  treasurer,  to  his  successor  in  office.  His 
term  of  office  shall  be  two  years,  but  he  may  be  at  any  time  removed  by  the 
court  upon  petition  of  a  majority  of  the  commissioners,  or  for  good  cause 
shown.  He  shall  receive,  as  a  compensation  for  his  services,  a  sum  fixed  by 
the  commissioners  before  his  appointment. 

Sec.  25.  Commissioners — notice  of  assessment.]  The  commission- 
ers, upon  receiving  such  certified  copy  of  such  assessment  roll,  or  the  treas- 
urer of  such  district,  shall  immediately  cause  a  notice  to  be  published  for 
three  weeks,  in  the  manner  required  in  section  three  of  this  Act,  in  substance 
as  follows : 

Notice  is  hereby  given  to  all  persons  interested,  that  an  assessment  (or 


290  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

installment  of.  ... .  .per  cent  of  the  assessment,  as  the  case  may  be)  is  now 

due  for  drainage  purposes  upon  lands  lying  within  the drainage  dis- 
trict, in  the  county  of and  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  same  must  be 

paid  to  the  undersigned  commissioners  of  said  drainage  district  (or  to , 

treasurer  of  said  district  at  his  office  in ,  as  the  case  may  be),  on 

or  before  the day  of ,  19.  . .  ;   and  in  default  of  such  payment, 

the  several  tracts  of  land  upon  which  said  assessment   (or  installment,  as 
the  case  may  be),  remains  unpaid,  will  be  sold  according  to  law,  to  pay  the 
amount  of  such  assessment  (or  installment)  and  costs. 
Dated  this dav  of 19.  .  . 


Commissioner  (or  Treasurer). 

In  case  the  assessments  made  are  ordered  by  the  county  court  paid  in  in- 
stallments, said  commissioners  or  treasurer  shall  give  a  like  notice,  as  near  as 
may  be,  of  any  installment  or  installments  immediately  after  such  install- 
ment or  installments  becomes  due  and  payable. 

In  case  of  "annual  amount  of  benefits"  in  drainage  and  levee  districts,  as 
is  required  by  section  forty-two  (42)  the  commissioners  shall  give  notice  in 
a  similar  manner  immediately  after  the  first  day  of  September  of  each  year 
stating  what  part  of  the  "annual  amount  of  benefits"  will  be  collected  for 
that  year,  which  notice  may  be  in  substance  as  follows : 

Notice  is  hereby  given  to  all  persons  interested,  that  the  "annual  amount 

of  benefits"   (or per  cent  of  the  "annual  amount  of  benefits,"  as  the 

case  may  be),  is  now  due  for  drainage  and  levee  work  for  the  year  com- 
mencing September  1,  A.  D.  19.  . .,  upon  land  lying  within  the 

drainage  and  levee  district,  in  the  county  of and  State  of  Illinois, 

and  that  the  same  must  be  paid  to  the  undersigned  commissioners  of  said 

district  (or  to ,  treasurer  of  said  district,  at  his  office  in , 

as  the  case  may  be) ,  on  or  before  the day  of ,  19 ... ,  and 

in  default  of  such  payment,  the  several  tracts  of  land  upon  which  said  "annual 

amount  of  benefits"  (or per  cent  of  the  "annual  amount  of  benefits,"  as 

the  case  may  be),  remains  unpaid,  will  be  sold  according  to  law,  to  pay  the 
amount  of  the  same  and  costs. 

Dated  this dav  of 19 ... . 


Commissioners  (or  Treasurer). 
Which  notice  shall  be  a  sufficient  demand  for  any  assessment  or  installment 
that  may  be  due. 

Sec.  26.  Delinquent  assessment — return — sale.]  If  the  assess- 
ment or  any  installment  or  installments  thereof,  or  annual  amount  of  benefits, 
due  upon  said  lands,  shall  not  be  paid  on  or  before  the  day  named  in  the 
notice  given  in  section  twenty-five  (25)  of  this  Act,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
said  commissioners,  if  they  have  not  appointed  a  treasurer  as  aforesaid,  and 


STATUS   OF    THE   REVISED    LEVEE    ACT  291 

if  so,  then  of  said  treasurer,  to  make  out  a  certified  list  of  such  delinquent 
lands  upon  which  the  assessment,  or  any  installment  or  annual  amount  of 
benefits  remains  unpaid,  and  the  same  be  by  him  or  them,  on  or  before  the 
tenth  day  of  March  next,  after  the  same  have  become  payable,  returned  to 
the  county  collector  of  the  county  or  counties  in  which  said  lands  shall  lie ; 
and  when  the  same  shall  lie  in  different  counties  a  separate  return  shall  be 
made  for  each  county  of  the  delinquent  lands  therein;  and  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  county  collector  to  whom  any  such  returns  have  been  made,  to 
transfer  such  returns  to  the  tax  books  in  his  hands,  setting  down  therein  in 
proper  order  the  several  tracts  of  the  real  estate,  town  lots  and  blocks  so 
returned,  and  setting  opposite  the  respective  tracts  of  real  estate,  lots  and 
blocks,  in  proper  columns  prepared  for  that  purpose,  the  amount  of  assess- 
ment, installment  or  installments  or  annual  amount  of  benefits  against  each 
tract  of  real  estate,  lots  and  blocks,  and  the  like  proceedings  shall  be  had 
and  with  the  like  force  and  effect  in  the  collection  of  such  delinquent  assess- 
ment or  assessments,  or  installment  or  annual  amount  of  benefits  unpaid, 
with  interest,  and  the  sale  of  said  real  estate,  lots,  blocks  and  lands  for  non- 
payment thereof  as  in  ordinary  collections  of  State  and  county  taxes  by 
county  collectors  and  of  sale  of  real  estate  by  them  for  such  non-payment 
and  of  redemption  from  such  sales.  Nothing  in  this  Act  contained  shall  be 
construed  to  affect  or  impair  any  assessment  or  return  of  lands  delinquent 
for  assessment  heretofore  made  under  any  law  of  this  State. 

Sec.  27.  Payment  before  sale.]  Notwithstanding  the  returns  of  such 
delinquent  list,  the  said  commissioners,  or  their  treasurer,  shall  be  authorized 
to  receive  payment  of  any  such  delinquent  assessments  and  costs,  and  may 
give  receipts  for  the  same,  but  shall  keep  a  memorandum  of  the  same,  and 
on  or  before  the  day  of  sale  fixed  by  said  county  collector  for  the  sale  of 
such  lands,  shall  present  said  memorandum,  or  list,  to  said  county  collector 
or  collectors,  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  same  checked  or  marked  paid 
on  the  delinquent  list  in  his  hands,  and  all  amounts  collected  by  the  said 
county  collector,  by  sales  or  otherwise,  after  deduction  of  his  fees,  shall  be 
paid  to  the  commissioners  on  demand. 

Sec.  28.  Neglect  to  pay  assessment  or  installment.]  In  case  the 
owner  or  owners  of  any  lands  lying  in  any  district,  heretofore  or  hereafter 
organized,  and  which  are  assessed,  fails  or  neglects  to  pay  any  assessment 
or  assessments,  installment  or  installments,  tax  levy  or  levies  when  due,  and 
the  same  be  not  collected  on  or  before  the  annual  sale  of  lands  for  non-pay- 
ment of  taxes,  the  commissioners  of  such  drainage  district  may  file  a  petition 
or  bill  in  the  circuit  court  of  the  county  in  which  the  land  or  property  upon 
which  such  assessment,  installment  or  levy  has  not  been  paid,  for  a  fore- 
closure of  such  lien ;  and  the  commissioners  may  proceed  in  the  corporate 
name  of  the  district  to  foreclose  such  lien  in  like  manner  and  with  like  effect 
as  in  foreclosure  of  mortgages.     Any  decree  rendered  in  such  court  may  be 


292  LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS 

enforced  and  collected  as  other  decrees  or  judgments  in  the  same  court. 
The  remedy  provided  in  this  section  for  the  collection  of  delinquent  assess- 
ments or  taxes  shall  not  be  construed  to  abridge  or  in  any  manner  interfere 
with  the  right  and  power  to  enforce  collection  of  any  delinquent  assessment 
or  tax  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  revenue  laws  of  this  State,  or  other 
provisions  of  this  Act,  but  the  remedy  herein  provided  shall  be  taken  and 
held  as  an  additional  means  to  enforce  payment  of  such  delinquent  assess- 
ment or  tax. 

Sec.  29.  Act  to  be  liberally  construed.]  This  act  shall  be  liberally 
construed  to  promote  the  ditching,  drainage,  and  reclamation  of  wet  or  over- 
flowed lands ;  and  collection  of  assessments  shall  not  be  defeated  by  reason 
of  any  omission,  imperfection  or  defect  in  the  organization  of  any  district, 
or  in  any  proceedings  occurring  prior  to  the  judgment  of  the  court,  confirm- 
ing the  assessments  of  benefits  and  damages;  but  said  judgment  shall  be 
conclusive  that  all  prior  proceedings  were  regular  and  according  to  law. 

ARTICLE  III. 

Power  to  Borrow  Money. 

Sec.  30.  Commissioners'  power  to  borrow  money.]  The  commission- 
ers may  borrow  money  not  exceeding  ninety  per  cent  of  the  amount  of  assess- 
ment unpaid  at  the  time  of  borrowing,  for  the  construction  of  any  work  which 
they  shall  be  authorized  to  construct,  or  for  the  payment  of  any  indebtedness 
they  may  have  lawfully  incurred  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  may 
secure  the  same  by  notes  or  bonds,  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  not  exceed- 
ing six  per  cent  per  annum,  and  not  running  beyond  one  year  after  the  last 
assessment  or  installment  of  assessment  on  account  of  which  the  money  is 
borrowed  shall  fall  due,  which  notes  or  bonds  shall  not  be  held  to  make  the 
commissioners  personally  liable  for  money  borrowed,  but  shall  constitute  a 
lien  upon  the  assessment  for  the  re-payment  of  the  principal  and  interest 
thereof ;  or  such  bonds  may  be  issued  to  the  amount  of  ninety  per  cent  of 
any  one  installment,  and  constitute  a  lien  on  such  installment  alone,  falling 
due  within  one  year  after  such  installment  becomes  due,  such  installment 
shall  be  particularly  designated  in  such  bonds,  and  the  county  court,  on  peti- 
tion of  the  commissioners  may  authorize  the  sale  of  said  notes  or  bonds  at 
not  less  than  90%  of  their  par  value :  Provided,  where  the  payment  of  any 
installment  or  installments  of  any  assessment  has  been  deferred  in  pursuance 
of  section  twenty  of  this  Act,  and  the  court  shall  find  on  the  petition  of  the 
commissioners  that  it  will  be  for  the  interests  of  the  district  that  money 
should  be  borrowed  to  an  amount  exceeding  ninety  per  cent  of  such  install- 
ment or  installments,  the  court  on  due  hearing,  may  by  order  entered  of 
record,  authorize  the  borrowing  of  money  to  such  an  amount  in  excess  of 
ninety  per  cent  of  such  installment  or  installments  as  the  court  may  find  to 


STATUS  OF  THE  REVISED   LEVEE   ACT  293 

be  advisable.  And  the  county  court  may,  on  the  petition  of  the  commis- 
sioners, authorize  them  to  refund  any  lawful  indebtedness  of  the  district 
authorized  by  and  created  under  this  Act,  or  any  former  Act,  by  taking  up 
and  cancelling  all  outstanding  notes  and  bonds  of  such  district,  issued  under 
this  Act,  or  any  former  Act,  as  fast  as  they  become  due,  or  before  they  shall 
become  due,  if  the  holders  thereof  will  surrender  the  same,  and  to  issue,  in 
lieu  thereof,  new  notes  or  bonds  of  such  district,  payable  on  such  longer  time 
as  the  commissioners  may  think  proper,  not  to  exceed  in  the  aggregate  the 
amount  of  all  notes  and  bonds  of  such  district  then  outstanding,  and  the  un- 
paid accrued  interest  thereon,  and  the  court  shall  have  power,  on  the  petition 
of  the  commissioners  to  order  that  the  collection  of  any  one  or  more,  or  all 
of  the  installments  of  the  assessments  for  benefits  on  account  of  which  the 
money  was  borrowed,  be  postponed  to  such  time  as  the  court  may  con- 
sider proper  and  reasonable,  when  the  same  shall  become  due  and  payable ; 
and  such  installment  or  installments,  so  postponed  shall  bear  interest  until 
they  shall  become  due,  at  the  rate  of  eight  (8)  per  cent  per  annum,  unless 
otherwise  ordered  by  the  court,  and  after  they  become  due  they  shall  bear 
interest  at  the  rate  of  eight  per  cent  per  annum :  Provided,  that  such  bonds 
and  notes  shall  be  made  due  and  payable  within  one  year  after  the  last  in- 
stallment of  the  assessment  postponed,  as  aforesaid,  shall  become  due.  The 
court  shall  have  the  power  to  make  all  needful  orders  to  carry  into  effect  the 
provisions  of  this  Act,  and  no  irregularity  in  the  proceedings,  either  before 
or  after  the  organization  of  the  district  or  in  the  assessment  of  benefits,  or 
in  the  extension  of  time  for  the  payment  of  the  same,  shall  in  any  manner 
affect  the  validity  of  the  bonds  or  coupons  issued  in  pursuance  of  this  Act. 
Sec.  31.  Bonds — how  attested,  etc.]  Each  bond  issued  as  provided 
for  by  section  thirty  (30)  of  this  Act  shall  be  attested  by  the  clerk  of  the 
county  court,  and  said  clerk  shall  also  make  a  certified  statement  thereon, 
affixing  his  seal  of  office  thereto,  of  the  total  amount  of  assessments  and  rate 
of  interest  it  bears,  pledged  for  the  payment  of  said  bonds  and  other  bonds, 
if  any  issued ;  the  date,  number,  denomination  and  time  due  of  all  bonds 
issued  which  are  a  lien  upon  the  assessments  or  installments  of  assessments 
of  the  district;  when  the  assessments  were  confirmed  by  the  county  court, 
and  the  number  of  acres  of  land  in  the  district  against  which  said  assess- 
ments were  made. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

Changes  in  Plans  and  Assessments,  Payment  of  Damage  and  Con- 
tracts for  Work. 

Sec.  32.  Change  in  construction.]  Whenever  the  commissioners  of 
any  drainage  district  organized  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act  shall  be  of 
the  opinion  that  it  would  be  for  the  best  interest  of  said  district  that  a  change, 


294  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

or  changes,  should  be  made  in  the  method  of  construction  of  any  part  of  the 
proposed  work  of  such  district,  or  in  the  route  of  any  proposed  ditch,  ditches, 
levee  or  levees  or  in  the  size,  capacity  or  plan  of  any  such  proposed  work,  the 
said  commissioners  shall  file  their  petition  in  the  county  court  of  the  county 
in  which  said  district  was  organized,  which  petition  shall  set  forth  the  nature 
of  the  proposed  change  or  changes  in  plans,  together  with  an  estimate  of  the 
additional  or  decreased  expense  of  such  change  or  changes,  and  which  shall 
be  signed  and  sworn  to  by  such  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  and 
to  which  petition  shall  be  attached,  the  affidavit  of  some  credible  person  or 
persons,  giving  the  names  and  post  office  addresses  of  all  owners  of  lands 
in  said  district,  not  residents  of  said  county.  Upon  such  petition  being  filed, 
the  court  shall  set  the  same  for  hearing,  on  some  day  not  less  than  two  weeks 
or  more  than  four  weeks  from  the  filing  thereof,  and  the  clerk  of  said  court 
shall  proceed  to  give  two  weeks'  notice  of  such  hearing,  in  the  manner  pro- 
vided in  section  three  (3)  of  this  Act.  Upon  the  hearing  thereof,  if  the 
court  shall  find  that  the  said  proposed  change,  or  changes,  does,  or  do,  not 
materially  affect  the  general  nature  and  character  of  the  proposed  work  of 
said  district,  and  does,  or  do,  not  decrease  the  general  efficiency  of  the.  same, 
the  court  shall  enter  an  order  to  that  effect  and  shall,  at  the  same  time  make 
a  finding  as  to  the  additional  amount  that  will  be  required  to  make  such 
change  or  changes,  or  the  decreased  amount  that  will  be  required  if  such 
change  or  changes  be  made.  In  case  the  court  shall  find  that  such  change 
or  changes  should  be  made  and  that  additional  expenditures  will  be  required 
to  make  such  change  or  changes,  the  court  may  order  the  same  paid  from 
the  general  funds  of  said  district,  or  may  order  the  commissioners  to  return 
a  roll  of  additional  assessments  or  benefits  against  the  lands  of  said  district 
for  the  additional  amount  required.  In  case  the  court  shall  order  an  addi- 
tional assessment  of  benefits,  or  an  assessment  of  benefits  and  damages,  the 
commissioners  and  court  shall  thereafter  proceed  in  the  return  and  confirma- 
tion of  the  same  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  Sections  17,  18,  18^2, 
and  19  of  this  Act.  In  case  the  court  shall  find  that  the  making  of  such 
change  or  changes  will  decrease  the  expense  of  the  proposed  work  of  said 
district,  the  court  shall  enter  an  order  abating  such  proportion  of  the  assess- 
ment of  benefits  as  shall  have  been  theretofore  made  in  such  uniform  pro- 
portions, as  such  change  or  changes  shall  render  unnecessary  to  be  expended. 
The  court  may,  for  good  cause  shown,  continue  the  hearing  on  such  petition 
from  time  to  time,  and  any  person  interested  may  appear  and  resist  the 
application  for  such  proposed  change  or  changes.  The  court  may,  on  the 
hearing  of  said  petition,  make  such  other  or  further  order  in  the  premises 
as  the  circumstances  may  require  in  order  to  do  justice  to  the  petitioners 
and  the  land  owners  and  persons  in  said  district. 

Sec.  32*4.     Abandonment  of  drain.]      At  any  time  before  the  con- 
tract shall  have  been  made  for  the  construction  of  anv  drain,  ditch,  levee  or 


STATUS   OF    THE   REVISED    LEVEE    ACT  295 

other  work  provided  for  in  the  report  of  the  commissioners,  or  the  order  of 
the  court  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  which  is  sought  to  be  abandoned,  as 
hereinafter  provided,  upon  petition  of  a  majority  of  the  adult  land  owners 
of  the  district  representing  one-half  or  more  of  its  area,  the  county  court 
may,  if  upon  due  inquiry  it  shall  be  satisfied  that  justice  towards  a  majority 
of  the  land  owners  of  said  district  requires  it,  direct  the  commissioners  to 
abandon  any  drain,  ditch,  levee  or  other  work,  or  any  part  thereof,  mentioned 
in  such  report  or  order.  Upon  the  filing  of  any  such  petition  it  shall  be  set 
down  for  hearing  by  the  court,  and  notices  of  the  filing  of  such  petition,  and 
of  the  general  nature  of  the  relief  sought  by  the  petitioners,  shall  be  given 
by  the  clerk  of  the  court  in  which  such  petition  is  filed  for  the  length  of  time 
and  in  the  manner  (as  far  as  applicable  to  the  nature  of  the  proceedings) 
required  by  Section  three  (3)  of  this  Act.  The  court  may,  for  good  cause, 
after  the  proof  of  notice  as  aforesaid,  continue  the  hearing  of  such  applica- 
tion from  time  to  time,  and  any  person  or  persons  interested  may  appear 
and  resist  such  application ;  and  the  court,  after  a  full  hearing  of  all  material 
facts  pertaining  thereto  may  make  such  order  in  the  premises  as  shall  appear 
to  the  court  to  be  just.  If  the  court  shall  determine  that  any  portion  of  the 
proposed  work  shall  be  abandoned,  it  shall  ascertain  to  what  extent  the  cost 
of  such  proposed  work  shall  be  diminished  thereby;  and  if  the  assessments 
for  benefits  shall  have  been  made,  such  portions  of  said  assessment  shall  be 
abated  in  such  uniform  proportion  as  such  change  of  plan  shall  render  un- 
necessary for  the  completion  of  such  works  according  to  such  modified  or 
altered  plans  and  if  any  lands  shall  have  been  assessed  by  the  commissioners 
which,  on  account  of  such  change  of  plans,  will  be  wholly  deprived  of  the 
benefits  contemplated  in  the  original  plans,  the  court  shall  order  that  the 
entire  assessments  against  such  lands  be  abated.  If  such  order  shall  be 
made  after  the  assessments  shall  have  been  collected,  the  court  shall  order 
such  proportion  of  said  assessments  as  may  be  abated  to  be  refunded  to  the 
persons  who  may  have  paid  the  same  or  their  lawful  representatives,  and 
for  noncompliance  with  such  order,  the  commissioners  and  the  treasurer  of 
said  district,  respectively,  and  their  sureties  shall  be  liable  upon  their  respec- 
tive bonds.  And  the  court  may  make  any  other  or  further  order  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  objects  of  this  section  of  this  Act,  as  justice  to  all  persons  whose 
interests  may  be  affected  by  it  may  require.  And  at  any  time  before  the 
contract  for  the  construction  of  the  proposed  works  shall  have  been  made, 
upon  presentation  to  the  County  Court  of  a  petition  signed  by  a  majority  in 
number  of  all  the  land  owners  of  such  district  and  owning  more  than  one- 
half  in  area  of  lands  in  the  districts  to  which  the  petitioners  belong,  praying 
that  the  whole  system  of  proposed  works  may  be  abandoned  and  the  district 
abolished,  the  court  shall  enter  upon  its  record  an  order  granting  the  prayer 
of  such  petition  upon  condition  that  the  petitioners  pay  all  court  costs  and 
all  debts  and  expenses   necessarily  and  properly  incurred  by  said  district 


296  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

up  to  the  time  of  filing  of  such  petition  for  abandonment,  said  expenses  and 
debts  and  costs  to  be  ascertained  and  fixed  by  the  court  as  part  of  its  order, 
within  thirty  (30)  days  from  the  rendition  of  said  order.  If  such  petitioners 
fail  to  comply  with  such  order  it  shall  be  considered  after  the  expiration  of 
said  thirty  (30)  days  as  of  no  force  or  effect  whatever.  If  the  district  be 
abolished  under  this  session  assessments  collected  shall  be  referred  to  the 
persons  who  have  paid  the  same,  or  their  representatives,  provided  that  the 
petitioners  shall  have  the  right  to  withdraw  from  said  petition  at  any  time 
before  the  petition  is  finally  acted  upon  by  the  court. 

Sec.  33.  Payment  of  damages.]  All  damages  over  and  above  benefits 
to  any  tract  of  land,  shall  be  payable  out  of  the  amount  assessed  against  other 
lands  assessed  for  benefits,  and  shall  be  paid  or  tendered  to  the  owner 
thereof  before  the  commissioners  shall  be  authorized  to  enter  upon  his  land 
for  the  construction  of  any  work  thereon.  In  case  the  owner  is  unknown,  or 
there  shall  be  a  contest  in  regard  to  the  ownership  of  the  land,  or  the  com- 
missioners cannot  for  any  reason  safely  pay  the  same  to  the  owner,  they  may 
deposit  the  same  with  the  clerk  of  the  court  and  the  court  may  order  the 
payment  thereof  to  such  party  as  shall  appear  to  be  entitled  to  the  same.  The 
damages  assessed  under  this  Act  in  favor  of  any  tract  or  tracts  of  land  in 
such  district,  shall  be  in  full  compensation  to  the  owners  thereof,  their  heirs 
or  assigns,  for  the  perpetual  right  of  way,  as  located  by  the  commissioners 
over  such  lands,  of  any  ditch  or  ditches,  open  or  covered,  levee  or  other  work 
including  the  right  of  the  commissioners,  their  employees  or  contractors  with 
teams,  tools  or  machinery  to  enter  upon  such  lands,  and  construct  such  work, 
and  if  necessary,  to  repair  or  enlarge  the  same,  and  any  person  who  shall 
wilfully  prohibit  or  prevent  any  of  the  aforesaid  persons  from  entering  such 
lands  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  shall  be  fined  in  a  sum  not  to  exceed  twenty- 
five  dollars  ($25.00)  per  day,  for  such  hindrance,  to  be  collected  as  other 
fines 

Sec.  34.  Letting  contracts — advertising  for  bids.]  The  commis- 
sioners, when  qualified  in  pursuance  of  this  Act,  may  do  any  and  all  acts  that 
may  be  necessary  in  and  about  the  surveying,  laying,  constructing,  repairing, 
altering,  enlarging,  cleaning,  protecting  and  maintaining  any  drain,  ditch, 
levee  or  other  work  for  which  they  have  been  appointed,  including  all  nec- 
essary embankments,  protections,  dams  and  side  drains,  clearing  out  and 
removing  obstructions  from  natural  or  artificial  channels  or  streams  within 
or  beyond  the  limits  of  the  drainage  district,  procuring  or  purchasing  riparian 
rights  by  agreement  with  the  owners  thereof,  and  may  use  any  money  in 
their  hands  arising  from  assessments  for  that  purpose:  Provided,  that  in 
all  cases  where  the  work  to  be  done  is  the  construction  of  the  principal  work, 
the  cost  of  which  will  exceed  five  hundred  dollars  ($500.00),  the  same  shall 
be  let  to  the  lowest  responsible  bidder,  and  the  said  commissioners  shall  ad- 
vertise for  sealed  bids  by  notice  published  at  least  once  in  some  newspaper 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED   LEVEE    ACT  297 

issued  in  the  county  in  which  the  petition  is  filed,  said  publication  to  be  pub- 
lished at  least  twenty  days  before  the  letting,  and  if  there  be  no  newspaper 
issued  or  published  in  said  county,  then  in  the  nearest  newspaper;  which 
said  notice  shall  particularly  set  out  the  time  and  place,  when  and  where, 
the  sealed  bids  will  be  opened;  the  kind  of  work  to  be  let,  and  the  terms  of 
payment.  Said  commissioners  may  continue  the  letting  from  time  to  time, 
if  in  their  judgment  the  same  shall  be  necessary,  and  may  reserve  the  right 
to  reject  any  and  all  bids.  And  said  commissioners  shall  not,  during  their 
term  of  office,  be  interested  directly  or  indirectly  in  any  contract  for  the 
construction  of  any  ditch,  drain,  or  levee,  in  such  drainage  district,  nor  in 
the  wages  of  or  supplies  to  men  or  teams  employed  on  any  such  work  in 
said  district:  Provided,  further,  that  no  levee,  drain,  ditch  or  other  work 
authorized  to  be  constructed  or  made  under  this  Act  shall  be  constructed  or 
made  in  such  a  manner  as  to  destroy  or  impair  the  usefulness  or  prevent 
the  public  use  of  any  bay  or  harbor,  or  body  of  water  used  as  a  harbor,  con- 
nected with  any  navigable  stream. 

Sec.  35.  Credit  on  assessment  for  work.]  In  case  any  person  assessed 
for  benefits,  contracts  to  do  any  work,  and  said  work  is  done  according  to 
contract,  the  commissioners  shall  give  said  person  a  receipt  for  so  much  of 
said  assessment  as  said  work  amounts  to,  and  said  receipt  may  be  received 
by  the  treasurer  as  payment  of  so  much  of  said  assessment :  Provided,  that 
when  bonds  have  been  issued  by  said  district  such  contractor  shall  have  an 
order  on  the  funds  in  the  hands  of  the  treasurer  for  said  amount. 

ARTICLE  V. 
Use  of  Money  and  Additional  Assessments. 

Sec.  36.  Money  to  be  used  under  direction  of  court.]  Said  com- 
missioners may  use  money  arising  from  the  collection  of  assessments  or  com- 
ing into  their  hands  as  such  commissioners  for  the  purpose  of 

1.  Compromising  suits  and  controversies  arising  under  this  Act, 

2.  In  the  employment  of  all  necessary  agents  and  attorneys,  in  organiz- 
ing said  district, 

3.  For  conducting  other  proceedings  at  law  or  in  equity  for  the  same, 
and 

4.  For  the  purpose  of  constructing  or  maintaining  or  repairing  any 
ditches,  drains,  or  levees  within  said  district  or  outside  of  said  district,  nec- 
essary to  the  protection  of  the  lands  and  complete  drainage  of  the  same  within 
said  district. 

Provided,  that  the  commissioners  shall  use  such  money  under  the  direc- 
tion or  approval  of  the  court. 

Sec.  37.  Additional  assessments.]  Assessments  from  time  to  time 
may  be  levied  within  any  district  when  it  shall  appear  to  the  court 


298  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

1.  That  the  previous  assessment  or  assessments  have  been  expended,  or 

2.  Are  inadequate  to  complete  such  work,  or 

3.  Are  necessary  for  maintenance  or  repair,  or 

4.  When  it  shall  become  necessary  for  the  construction  of  one  or  more 
pumping  plants  or  other  additional  work,  or 

5.  To  pay  obligations  incurred  for  the  current  expenses  of  said  district 
or  in  the  keeping  in  repair  and  protection  of  the  work  of  said  district,  or 

6.  The  completion  of  any  work  already  commenced  within  any  drain- 
age district  to  insure  the  drainage  or  protection  of  the  lands  in  said  district 
under  the  direction  and  order  of  the  court,  or 

7.  To  pay  obligations  incurred  for  the  completion  of  any  part  of  the 
work  of  said  district,  as  originally  planned,  contracted  for  and  already  com- 
menced within  any  drainage  district  to  insure  the  protection  or  drainage  of 
the  lands  in  said  district,  or 

8.  When  it  shall  become  necessary  to  realize  funds  in  order  that  any 
district  organized  under  this  or  other  Acts  may  avail  itself  of  financial 
assistance  from  any  appropriation  made  by  the  government  of  the  United 
States  for  the  purpose  of  repairing,  enlarging  or  strengthening  any  levee  or 
levees  adjacent  to  or  near  any  river. 

On  a  petition  of  the  requisite  majority  of  land  owners,  hereinbefore  de- 
fined, or  on  the  petition  of  the  commissioners  accompanied  by  an  itemized 
statement  of  accounts  made  by  the  commissioners  under  oath  showing : 

(a)  The  moneys  received  by  the  district, 

(b)  The  manner  in  which  they  have  been  expended, 

(c)  The  plats  and  profiles  of  any  additional  work, 

(d)  The  estimated  cost  of  the  same. 

Two  weeks'  previous  notice  of  the  time  set  for  the  hearing  on  said  peti- 
tion in  the  manner  required  by  section  three  (3)  of  this  Act  shall  be  given 
and  on  the  hearing  of  said  petition  the  court  may  grant  or  deny  the  prayer 
of  the  same  and  may  make  such  other  order  as  the  case  shall  require. 

If  the  court  finds  an  additional  assessment  should  be  made,  it  shall  cause 
a  jury  to  be  impaneled  to  make  said  assessment,  as  well  as  an  assessment  for 
an  annual  amount  of  benefits  for  maintaining  and  operating  such  pumping 
plant  or  plants  and  for  keeping  such  additional  work  in  repair,  with  like  pro- 
ceedings, and  notice  as  near  as  may  be,  as  in  case  of  original  assessments  of 
damages  and  benefits  under  this  Act  and  such  additional  assessment  or  assess- 
ments when  made  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  and  be  collected  in 
the  same  manner  as  original  assessments. 

Sec.  38.  Inclusion  of  void  or  unpaid  assessments.]  In  making  ad- 
ditional assessments  the  jury  may  consider  any  prior  assessment  or  assess- 
ments, against  any  land  which  are  void  and  unpaid,  by  reason  of  some  omis- 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED    LEVEE    ACT  299 

sion,  clerical  error,  mistake,  or  for  want  of  proper  notice  to  the  owner  thereof* 
or  on  account  of  other  irregularity  of  proceedings  not  affecting  the  merits 
of  such  prior  assessments  and  may  include  the  same  or  any  part  thereof 
with  such  other  assessments. 

Sec.  39.  Proceedings  when  assessment  is  invalid  as  to  one  or  more 
tracts.]  Whenever  it  shall  appear  to  the  court  that  any  proceedings  for  the 
organization  of  a  drainage  district,  or  any  assessment  of  damages  or  benefits 
under  this  Act,  or  any  law  of  this  State  is  invalid  as  to  one  or  more  tracts 
of  land  jointly  or  severally  owned,  situated  in  such  district  or  any  tract  of 
land  has  been  omitted  from  such  assessment  by  reason  of  clerical  error  or 
other  mistake,  or  want  of  the  proper  notice  or  notices,  as  required  by  such 
Act  or  law,  such  want  of  notice  shall  not  invalidate  such  organization,  neither 
shall  such  assessment  of  benefits  be  lost  to  the  district ;  but  the  commission- 
ers of  such  district  may  file  a  petition  against  the  owner  or  owners,  his  heirs 
or  assigns,  of  such  lands  irregularly  assessed  or  omitted  in  said  court,  de- 
scribing in  such  petition  the  boundaries  and  name  of  the  district,  the  land 
owned  by  defendants,  the  amount  of  damages  and  benefits  assessed  in  favor 
of  and  against  such  lands,  reciting  such  irregularity  of  notice  and  omissions, 
and  praying  the  defects  and  omissions  may  be  cured,  and  such  assessments 
be  made  valid,  and  that  the  lands  omitted,  if  any,  may  be  assessed,  or  made 
a  part  of  the  district,  as  the  case  may  be. 

Sec.  40.  Process  and  hearing  thereon.]  Upon  the  filing  of  such 
petition,  process  of  summons  shall  be  issued  thereon,  made  returnable  to 
said  court,  and  served  ten  days  before  the  next  succeeding  term  thereof,  or 
continued,  as  the  case  may  be,  for  service,  in  the  manner  now  provided  by 
law  for  issuing  and  service  of  summons  in  chancery  cases ;  and  in  case  the 
defendants  or  either  of  them,  are  non-residents  of  this  State,  like  proceed- 
ings and  practice  shall  be  had,  and  notice  by  publication  shall  be  given  as 
provided  by  such  law  in  chancery  cases.  In  case  any  defendants  are  minors, 
the  court  shall  appoint  a  guardian  ad  litem  who  shall  appear  and  defend  in 
behalf  of  such  minors ;  and  every  defendant  served  or  notified  as  required 
in  this  Act  shall  by  his  answer  show  why  the  prayer  of  the  petition  should 
not  be  granted;  and  in  default  of  such  answer  the  court  shall  give  judgment 
according  to  the  prayer  of  such  petition.  In  case  the  defendants  file  such 
answer,  the  court,  on  the  trial  of  said  cause,  shall  hear  oral  or  written  evi- 
dence, and  give  judgment  therein,  as  in  cases  of  equity,  and  may  grant  the 
prayer  of  such  petition :  Provided,  in  case  the  petition  asks  to  make  valid 
an  assessment  of  damages  or  benefits,  or  to  make  assessments  in  favor  of 
or  against  lands  omitted,  the  defendant,  if  he  demands  it,  shall  be  entitled  to 
a  jury  to  view  the  premises,  and  make  assessments  de  novo,  or  make  assess- 
ments omitted,  as  to  the  lands  named  in  the  petition,  and  a  special  assessment 
roll  shall  be  made  and  filed  and  a  jury  impaneled  and  sworn  and  shall  proceed 
in  the  manner  provided  by  this  Act,  as  near  as  may  be,  for  making  assess- 


300  LAND  DRAINAGE  IN   ILLINOIS 

ments  and  such  further  proceedings  and  confirmation  shall  be  had  therein,  as 
provided  in  this  Act,  in  cases  of  other  assessments ;  and  the  defendants  may 
appeal  from  the  confirmation  of  the  verdict  of  the  jury  or  judgment  of  the 

county  court,  upon  the  same  conditions  provided  by  this  Act  for  appeals 
from  judgments  in  other  cases  of  assessment  of  damages  and  benefits. 

ARTICLE  VI. 
Maintenance  of  Work  After  Completion. 

Sec.  41.  Assessment  for  repairs.]  The  amount  assessed  for  keeping 
any  levee  or  other  work  of  the  district  in  repair,  shall  not  in  the  aggregate 
amount  to  a  sum  in  any  one  year,  greater  than  would  be  produced  by  30  cents 
per  acre  on  all  lands  within  said  district.  In  case  such  assessment  of  annual 
benefits  is  not  made  at  the  time  of  the  original  organization  of  said  district 
or  the  same  is  thereafter  found  to  be  insufficient,  the  same  may  be  provided 
,  for,  or  increased  in  the  same  manner  as  herein  provided  for  the  levying  of 
additional  assessments  in  such  districts. 

In  case  the  petition  shall  set  out  that  a  levee  or  ditch  has  been  made 
under  any  law  of  this  State  and  prays  for  an  assessment  of  benefits  to  repair 
and  keep  in  repair  said  levee  or  ditch,  the  commissioners  shall  cause  to  be 
made  an  assessment  of  benefits  which  said  lands  will  sustain  by  repairing 
said  levee  or  ditches,  and  also  the  "annual  amount"  of  benefits  which  said 
lands  will  sustain  by  keeping  said  levee  or  ditch  in  repair  thereafter  and  such 
assessment  of  benefits  shall  be  made  in  the  same  manner  provided  by  sections 
seventeen  (17),  eighteen  (18),  eighteen  and  one-half  (18^4),  and  nineteen 
(19)  of  this  Act,  but  in  all  other  respects  the  commissioners  shall  comply 
with  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  applicable  thereto : 
Provided,  that  in  all  cases  where  the  amount  of  benefits  assessed,  and  the 
assessment  of  benefits  to  repair  said  levees,  ditches  or  drains,  heretofore 
constructed  under  any  law  of  this  State  are  insufficient  to  complete  the 
ditches,  drains  or  levees  embraced  in  the  proceedings,  the  "annual  amount 
of  benefits"  assessed  to  keep  said  levee  or  ditch  in  repair  after  making  all 
necessary  repairs  and  paying  other  necessary  expenses  of  maintenance  for 
any  year,  may  be  applied  to  complete  the  ditches,  drains  or  levees  embraced 
in  the  proceedings,  and  to  raising,  strengthening  and  protecting  said  ditches, 
drains  and  levees,  when  required  to  protect  the  lands  embraced  in  the  drain- 
age and  levee  districts  organized  under  this  Act,  from  inundation  and  over- 
flow, and  in  paying  interest  on  any  other  notes  or  bonds  issued  under 
this  act. 

Sec.  42.  Annual  amount  of  benefits — when  payable — proceed- 
ing— report — may  borrow  money — interest.]  In  case  where  a  levee  or 
ditch  has  been  heretofore  built  under  any  law  of  this  State,  or  may  hereafter 
be  built  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  the  annual  amount  of  benefits  for 


STATUS  OF   THE  REVISED   LEVEE   ACT  301 

keeping  the  same  in  repair  shall  be  due  and  payable  on  the  1st  day  of  Sep- 
tember annually,  and  shall  be  a  lien  on  the  lands  upon  which  said  assess- 
ments are  made,  from  and  after  the  confirmation  of  the  report.  The  court 
in  which  such  proceedings  are  had  shall  require  from  said  commissioners  a 
report  of  the  condition  of  the  levee  or  ditch  at  its  July  term  of  each  year, 
together  with  their  estimate  of  the  amount  necessary  to  keep  the  levees  or 
ditches  in  repair,  pay  all  incidental  and  necessary  expenses  for  the  ensuing 
year,  and  the  amount  necessary  to  complete  the  ditches,  drains  or  levees  em- 
braced in  the  proceedings  and  to  raise,  strengthen  or  protect  said  ditches, 
drains  or  levees,  when  completed,  and  in  constructing  additional  ditches, 
drains  or  levees  when  required  to  protect  the  lands  embraced  in  the  drainage 
and  levee  district  organized  under  this  Act,  from  inundation  and  overflow; 
and  if  the  court  shall  find  that  a  less  amount  will  be  required  for  such  en- 
suing year  than  the  wThole  amount  of  the  assessment  for  the  year,  then  the 
court  shall  by  an  order  fix  the  amount  to  be  paid  for  such  year  and  only  that 
amount  shall  be  collected,  and  the  excess  of  such  assessment  over  and  above 
the  amount  so  fixed  by  said  order  for  said  year  shall  be  remitted  by  law,  and 
shall  not  thereafter  be  collected :  Provided,  that  the  amount  to  be  collected 
under  the  order  of  said  court  shall  not  in  the  aggregate  amount  in  any  one 
year,  to  a  sum  greater  than  would  be  produced  by  a  levy  of  thirty  cents  per 
acre  on  all  the  lands  within  said  district ;  except  in  districts  which  now  have, 
or  may  hereafter  have,  pumping  plants,  in  which  districts  the  annual  amount 
of  benefits  collected  each  year  shall  be  a  sum  sufficient  to  keep  the  levees, 
ditches,  drains  and  other  works  of  said  district  in  repair  and  to  maintain  in 
operation  such  pumping  plant  or  plants :  Provided  further,  that  in  all  cases 
where  the  ditches,  drains  or  levees  constructed  or  repaired  under  this  Act 
or  any  former  act  are  in  danger  of  being  impaired,  injured,  broken  or  de- 
stroyed by  overflow  or  otherwise,  and  a  part  of  the  annual  amount  of  bene- 
fits for  protection  and  keeping  the  same  in  repair  for  the  year  in  which  said 
ditches,  drains  or  levees  are  so  threatened,  has  been  remitted  by  order  of  the 
court  as  herein  provided,  or  when  the  annual  amount  of  benefits  for  protect- 
ing and  keeping  the  same  in  repair  for  any  year  is  insufficient,  the  commis- 
sioners of  drainage  and  levee  districts,  operating  under  this  Act,  may  borrow 
money  on  the  annual  amount  of  benefits  becoming  due  the  1st  day  of  Sep- 
tember, following  the  time  when  said  ditches,  drains  or  levees  are  so  threat- 
ened, to  the  extent  of  two-thirds  of  said  annual  amount  of  benefits  and  may 
secure  the  same  by  notes  or  bonds  of  the  drainage  and  levee  districts  bearing 
interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum,  and  not  running  beyond  one 
year  from  the  date  of  issue,  which  notes  or  bonds  shall  not  be  held  to  make 
the  commissioners  personally  liable  for  the  money  borrowed,  but  shall  con- 
stitute a  lien  upon  the  annual  amount  of  benefits  falling  due  thereafter  for 
the  repayment  of  the  principal  and  interest  thereof. 


302  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

ARTICLE  VII. 
Annexing  Lands  to  Organized  Districts. 

Sec.  43.  Assessing  lands  benefited  outside  the  district.]  Any  land 
lying  outside  of  the  drainage  district  as  organized,  the  owner  or  owners  of 
which  shall  thereafter  make  connection  with  the  main  ditch  or  drain  or  with 
any  ditch  or  drain  within  the  district  as  organized  or  whose  lands  are  or  will 
be  benefited  by  the  work  of  such  district,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  made  volun- 
tary application  to  be  included  in  such  drainage  district;  and  thereupon  the 
commissioners  shall  make  complaint  in  writing,  setting  forth  a  description  of 
such  land  or  lands  benefited,  and  amount  of  benefits ;  the  name  of  the  owner 
or  owners  thereof,  also  a  description  of  the  drain  or  ditch  making  connection 
with  the  ditches  of  such  district,  as  near  as  may  be ;  and  file  said  complaint 
in  the  county  court  or  before  a  justice  of  the  peace.  The  court  or  justice 
of  the  peace  shall  fix  a  day,  not  less  than  fifteen  days  from  such  filing,  when 
he  will  hear  such  complaint,  and  thereupon  the  commissioners  shall  give 
ten  days'  notice  thereof  in  writing ;  said  notice  shall  embrace  a  copy  of  such 
complaint,  and  service  thereof  shall  be  either  by  reading  or  delivering  a 
copy  thereof  to  such  owner  or  owners,  or  by  publishing  a  copy  of  said  peti- 
tion and  posting  copies  thereof  within  the  territory  sought  to  be  annexed  in 
the  same  manner  as  provided  by  Section  3  of  said  Act ;  and  affidavit  of  such 
service  shall  be  evidence  thereof.  At  the  time  fixed,  or  at  a  time  continued 
from  such  time  fixed,  the  court  or  justice  of  the  peace,  shall  hear  said  cause, 
and  if  the  complaint  is  before  a  justice  of  the  peace,  and  judgment  is  ren- 
dered in  favor  of  said  district,  he  shall  record  a  copy  of  said  complaint,  and 
service  of  notice  thereof  together  with  his  judgment  thereon  upon  his  docket, 
and  if  the  district  was  organized  before  the  county  court,  he  shall  transmit 
a  certified  copy  of  such  complaint  and  judgment  to  the  clerk  of  such  court 
who  shall  file  and  record  the  same,  or  if  the  complaint  was  heard  by  the 
county  court,  in  which  such  district  was  organized  and  judgment  given  in 
favor  of  said  district,  a  record  of  such  judgment  giving  a  description  of 
such  lands  annexed  shall  be  made,  and  such  lands  described  in  the  complaint 
in  either  case,  shall  be  deemed  a  part  of  such  district  and  shall  be  assessed 
as  other  lands  therein.  The  assessments  of  benefits  against  such  lands  so 
added  to  aid  district  may  be  made  at  any  time  the  commissioners  may  deem 
proper ;  and  the  assessment  roll  thereof  shall  be  filed  and  recorded  and  pro- 
ceedings thereon  had  as  in  other  cases ;  or  such  lands  may  be  assessed  when 
all  lands  throughout  the  district  are  assessed : 

Sec.  44.  Use  of  district  drains  by  owners  within  the  district. 
Voluntary  annexation  by  outside  owner.]  Nothing  in  this  Act  shall  be 
construed  to  forbid  land  owners  within  the  district  to  more  completely  drain 
their  lands  by  using  the  common  drains  as  outlets  to  lateral  drains ;  and  the 
owners  of  land  outside  the  drainage  districts  or  another  drainage  district 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED   LEVEE    ACT  303 

may  connect  with  the  ditches  of  the  district  already  made,  by  the  payment 
of  such  amount  as  they  would  have  been  assessed  if  originally  included  in 
the  district,  or  if  such  connection  shall,  by  increase  of  water,  require  an  en- 
largement of  the  district  ditches,  then  the  outside  owners  of  land  so  con- 
necting, or  other  drainage  district,  as  may  be,  shall  pay  the  cost  of  such  en- 
largement. If  individual  land  owners  outside  the  district  shall  so  connect, 
they  shall  be  deemed  to  have  voluntarily  applied  to  be  included  in  the  district, 
and  their  lands  benefited  by  such  drainage,  shall  be  treated,  and  assessed  like 
other  lands  within  the  district. 

Drainage  commissioners  may  at  any  time  enlarge  the  boundaries  of  their 
districts  by  attaching  new  areas  of  land  which  are  involved  in  the  same 
system  of  drainage  and  require  for  outlets  the  drains  of  the  district  made 
or  proposed  to  be  made,  as  the  case  may  be,  on  petition  of  as  great  a  pro- 
portion of  the  land  owners  of  the  area  to  be  added  as  is  required  for  an 
original  district.  All  changes  thus  made  in  the  district  shall  be  duly  noted  and 
shown  upon  the  map,  and  recorded  in  the  drainage  record.  The  lands  thus 
added  to  the  district  shall  be  assessed  with  their  fair  proportion  of  the  costs 
of  the  work  done,  or  to  be  done,  in  like  manner,  and  upon  the  same  basis  as 
it  would  have  been  made  had  the  new  area  been  included  in  the  district  at 
its  organization. 

ARTICLE  VIII. 

Sub-Districts. 

Sec.  45.  Constructing  additional  ditches — proceedings.]  If,  after 
an  assessment  of  lands  throughout  the  district  has  been  made  for  the  pur- 
pose of  constructing  drains  or  ditches,  or  enlarging  or  repairing  the  main 
drains  or  ditches  of  said  district,  according  to  the  profiles,  plans  and  specifica- 
tions of  the  commissioners,  as  reported  and  confirmed,  there  remain  lands  in 
particular  localities  in  any  original  district  which  are  in  need  of  more  minute 
and  complete  drainage,  and  it  shall  appear  to  the  commissioners  that,  in  their 
judgment,  additional  ditches,  drains,  outlets,  levees,  pumping  plants,  or  other 
work  are  needed  in  order  to  afford  more  complete  drainage,  they  may  pre- 
pare a  special  report  as  hereinafter  provided  and  file  the  same  and  organize 
a  sub-district,  in  the  manner  hereinafter  set  forth  without  the  necessity  of 
a  petition  of  the  land  owners  therefor,  and  in  all  cases  where,  upon  written 
application  to  the  commissioners  signed  by  a  majority  in  number  of  the  adult 
land  owners  in  such  locality  owning  in  the  aggregate  more  than  one- third  of 
the  land  affected  or  by  the  adult  land  owners  of  the  major  part  of  the  land 
in  such  locality  who  constitute  one-third  or  more  of  the  owners  of  the  land 
affected,  it  shall  appear  that  additional  ditches,  drains,  outlets,  levees,  pump- 
ing plants  or  other  work  are  necessary  in  order  to  afford  more  complete 
drainage  to  such  locality,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  commissioners  to  ex- 
amine such  lands,  and  lay  off  and  make  plans,  profiles  and  specifications  of 


304  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

such  additional  work,  and  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the  same  and  make  a 
special  report  thereof,  which  special  report  whether  filed  on  petition  of  land 
owners  or  not,  shall  describe  all  of  the  lands  which  will  be  either  benefited 
or  damaged  by  such  additional  work,  together  with  the  names  of  the  owners, 
when  known ;  and  said  commissioners  may  use  any  money  in  their  hands 
not  otherwise  appropriated  to  pay  the  necessary  expenses  of  preparing  said 
special  report;  provided,  said  sum  to  be  expended  shall  in  no  case  exceed 
the  sum  of  $500.00 ;  the  special  report  when  prepared  by  the  commissioners 
shall  be  filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  county  court,  and  the  commissioners  shall 
give  to  all  persons  whose  lands  will  be  either  benefited  or  damaged,  whether 
they  signed  an  application  for  additional  work  or  not,  three  weeks'  notice  of 
the  filing  and  hearing  of  such  report  in  the  manner  required  by  Section 
three  (3)  of  this  Act;  said  notice  shall  state  that  the  commissioners  will 
appear  before  the  county  court  at  a  day  mentioned  in  said  notice,  and  ask 
said  court  for  a  confirmation  of  such  special  report ;  and  upon  said  hearing 
the  court  shall  pass  upon  said  report  and  may  permit  the  same  to  be  amended, 
and  if  said  report  is  confirmed  and  approved  by  the  court,  a  special  assess- 
ment of  benefits  and  damages  shall  be  made  upon  all  the  lands  benefited  or 
damaged  by  the  proposed  work,  in  the  manner  provided  for  the  making  of 
the  original  assessments  for  the  benefits  and  damages  by  this  Act;  and  like 
proceedings  shall  be  had  thereon  as  in  other  cases  and  assessments  of  benefits 
and  damages  provided  by  this  Act;  and  said  commissioners  shall  have  the 
power  to  cause  to  be  made  additional  assessments  of  benefits  and  damages 
for  the  same  purposes  and  with  like  proceedings  as  in  cases  of  additional 
assessments  of  benefits  and  damages  made  for  original  districts  under  this 
Act;  and  the  said  commissioners  may  cause  to  be  levied  an  assessment  of 
annual  benefits  in  said  sub-district  in  the  same  manner  as  annual  benefits 
are  levied  in  original  districts  under  this  Act:  Provided,  that  if  said  sub- 
district  does  not  own  or  operate  a  pumping  plant,  such  annual  benefits  shall 
not  in  any  one  year  amount  to  more  in  the  aggregate  than  a  sum  which 
would  be  produced  by  the  levy  of  thirty  cents  per  acre  on  all  the  lands  within 
said  sub-district. 

The  affidavit  of  any  of  the  commissioners,  or  any  other  credible  person, 
of  the  posting  and  mailing  thereof  affixed  to  a  copy  of  said  notice  shall  be 
sufficient  evidence  of  the  posting  and  mailing  of  said  notices,  and  the  cer- 
tificate of  the  publisher  of  the  newspaper  in  which  said  notice  was  published 
shall  be  sufficient  evidence  of  the  publication  of  such  notice. 

Upon  confirmation  of  said  special  report  by  the  court,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  court  to  declare  all  the  lands  found  to  be  affected  by  the  work 
proposed  by  said  special  report  to  be  organized  into  a  sub-district,  and  all 
assessments  received  and  collected  in  such  sub-district,  for  the  work  of  such 
sub-district,  shall  be  kept  as  a  separate  fund  belonging  to  such  sub-district, 
and  said  commissioners  shall  have  the  power,  if  necessary,  to  issue  bonds 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED    LEVEE    ACT  305 

against  any  assessment  or  assessments  in  said  sub-district  in  the  same  manner 
as  bonds  are  issued  in  original  districts. 

The  commissioners  of  the  principal  district  shall  be  ex-officio  commis- 
sioners of  the  sub-district. 

Any  lands  lying  outside  of  any  sub-district  as  organized,  the  owner  or 
owners  of  which  shall  hereafter  make  connections  with  any  ditch  or  drain 
within  any  sub-district,  or  whose  lands  are  or  will  be  benefited  by  the  work 
of  such  sub-district,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  made  voluntary  application  to 
be  included  in  such  sub-district,  and  thereupon  the  commissioners  shall  make 
complaint  as  provided  in  Section  43  of  this  Act  as  to  lands  lying  outside  of 
a  drainage  district  as  organized,  and  like  proceedings  shall  be.  made  thereon 
as  in  cases  of  complaints  made  under  said  Section  43. 

ARTICLE  IX. 

Drainage  Commissioners,  Their  Organization,  Powers  and  Duties 

and  Succession. 

Sec.  46.  Official  oath.]  Before  entering  upon  the  duties  of  their 
office  all  commissioners  shall  take  and  subscribe  to  an  oath  to  faithfully  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  their  office  without  favor  or  partiality,  and  to  render  a 
true  account  of  their  doings  to  the  court,  by  which  they  are  appointed  or 
which  has  jurisdiction  over  the  district  at  the  time  such  report  is  due  when- 
ever required  by  law  or  order  of  the  court,  which  oath  shall  be  filed  with 
the  clerk. 

Sec.  47.  Chairman-secretary.]  They  shall  elect  one  of  their  number 
chairman,  and  may  elect  one  of  their  number  as  secretary. 

Sec.  48.  Quorum.]  A  majority  of  the  commissioners  shall  constitute 
a  quorum,  and  a  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  their  number  in  any  matter 
within  their  duties  shall  be  sufficient. 

Sec.  49.  Drainage  record.]  The  commissioners  shall,  at  the  expense 
of  the  district,  keep  a  well  bound  book,  to  be  known  as  the  "drainage  record," 
which  shall  at  all  times  be  open  for  inspection  to  parties  interested,  in  which 
one  of  their  number,  as  secretary,  shall  record  the  proceedings  of  every 
meeting  thereof.  They  shall  hold  such  meetings  on  the  first  Tuesdays  of 
March,  May,  July  and  September  of  each  year,  or  oftener,  if  necessary. 
They  shall  make  brief  memoranda  in  such  record  of  all  their  transactions 
concerning  the  district.  If  bonds  have  been  issued,  and  sold,  as  a  lien  on 
any  particular  installment  of  assessments,  or  a  general  lien  on  all ;  or  con- 
tracts have  been  let  on  any  section  or  division  of  work ;  or  orders  issued  on 
the  treasurer;  or  materials  or  tools  purchased;  or  warrants  for  service  of 
a  commissioner  issued  by  the  clerk;  or  sums  paid,  by  order,  for  work  done; 
all  such  proceedings  and  any  other  particular  matter  or  transaction  of  such 
commissioners  shall  be  carefully  entered  upon  such  records,  and  the  dates, 
amounts  and  proper  descriptions  of  such  doings,  shall  at  all  times  be  observed 


306  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

in  making  such  memoranda.  Said  commissioners  shall  also  take  and  pre- 
serve proper  vouchers  for  all  orders  given  by  them  on  the  treasurer. 

Sec.  50.  Reports  of  commissioners.]  The  commissioners  shall  as 
often  as  once  in  each  year  after  their  appointment,  and  as  much  oftener  as 
the  court  shall  require,  make  a  report  to  the  court,  showing  the  amount  of 
money  by  them  collected  and  the  manner  in  which  the  same  has  been  ex- 
pended; and  upon  the  filing  of  such  report,  the  court  shall  set  a  time,  not 
exceeding  three  weeks  from  such  filing,  when  such  report  shall  be  heard; 
and  the  commissioners  shall  give  at  least  ten  days'  notice  thereof,  by  posting 
written  or  printed  notices,  in  not  less  than  four  of  the  most  public  places 
in  the  district,  and  one  at  the  door  of  the  court  house  of  the  county  in  which 
said  district  was  organized.  Upon  the  time  fixed  the  court  shall  hear  said 
report  and  all  objections  thereto,  or  may  continue  such  hearing  to  another 
time  fixed ;  and  upon  hearing  such  report,  may  require  evidence,  to  be  pro- 
duced by  the  commissioners,  in  support  thereof,  and  if  found  correct,  may 
approve  such  report.  Upon  the  failure  of  the  commissioners,  or  either 
of  them,  to  make  such  report,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court,  as  required 
by  this  section  the  court  on  the  application  of  any  person  interested,  or  with- 
out such  application,  shall  remove  such  commissioner  or  commissioners 
from  office. 

Sec.  51.  Bond  of  commissioners.]  The  commissioners  appointed  by 
virtue  of  this  chapter,  shall  not  collect  or  receive  any  money  for  the  purposes 
herein  specified,  until  they  shall  have  given  bond,  payable  to  the  people  of 
the  State  of  Illinois  for  the  use  of  all  persons  interested,  in  a  sum  not  less 
than  twice  the  amount  of  the  assessment  for  benefits  which  is  payable  in 
any  one  year,  or  which  may  come  into  their  hands  or  under  their  control 
during  such  year,  with  such  security  as  shall  be  approved  by  the  judge  of 
the  court,  conditioned  for  the  faithful  application  of  all  moneys  that  may  be 
received  by  them  as  such  commissioners,  and  to  make  due  account  thereof  to 
the  court  whenever  required,  by  law  or  order  of  the  court,  and  for  the  faith- 
ful performance  of  their  duties  as  commissioners,  which  bond  shall  be  filed 
in  the  court  in  which  the  proceedings  are  had.  Such  commissioners  are 
hereby  required  to  renew  such  bond,  on  or  before  the  15th  day  of  September, 
each  year,  after  the  appointment  of  them  or  either  of  them. 

Sec.  52.  Pay  of  Commissioners.]  The  commissioners  shall  hold  all 
their  meetings  for  the  transaction  of  business  at  any  place  in  the  county  or 
counties  in  which  said  district  is  located,  and  shall  receive  for  their  services 
the  sum  of  five  dollars  per  day,  and  their  necessary  traveling  expenses  for 
each  day  they  shall  be  actually  engaged  in  the  business  of  their  office.  The 
commissioners  shall  present  an  itemized  account,  under  oath,  to  the  county 
court,  of  the  amounts  due  them,  respectively,  which  account  shall  be  audited 
at  least  once  a  year  by  said  county  court,  and  certified  by  said  court  to  their 
treasurer,  to  be  paid  by  him  on  said  certificate.     But  such  itemized  account 


STATUS  OF   THE   REVISED   LEVEE   ACT  307 

or  accounts  shall  be  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  court  as  provided  by  Sec- 
tion fifty  (50)  of  this  Act.  The  clerk  of  the  county  court  shall  receive  for 
his  services  hereunder,  such  fees  as  are  allowed  by  law  for  similar  services- 
in  said  county  court. 

Sec.  53.  Power  of  commissioners  to  contract.]  Upon  the  organ- 
ization of  said  drainage  district,  it  shall  in  its  corporate  name,  by  its  com- 
missioners from  thenceforth,  have  power  to  contract  and  be  contracted 
with,  sue  and  be  sued,  plead  and  be  impleaded  and  to  do  and  perform,  in 
the  corporate  name  of  said  district,  all  such  acts  and  things  as  may  be 
necessary  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  54.  Power  to  Enter  Lands.]  The  commissioners  from  the 
time  of  their  appointment  may  go  upon  the  lands  lying  within  said  district 
for  the  purpose  of  examining  the  same,  and  making  plans  and  surveys  and 
after  the  organization  of  said  district,  and  payment  or  tender  of  compensa- 
tion allowed,  may  go  upon  said  lands,  with  their  servants,  teams,  tools, 
instruments,  or  other  equipments,  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  such 
proposed  work,  and  may  forever  thereafter  enter  upon  said  lands  as  afore- 
said, for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  or  repairing  such  proposed  work,  doing- 
no  more  damage  than  the  necessity  of  the  occasion  may  require ;  and  any 
person  or  persons,  who  shall  wilfully  prevent  or  prohibit  any  of  such  persons 
from  entering  such  lands  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  shall  be  fined  any  sums 
not  exceeding  $25.00  per  day  for  each  day's  hindrance,  to  be  recovered  in 
an  action  of  debt  in  favor  of  such  drainage  district  before  any  justice  of 
the  peace,  or  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  which  sum  shall  be  paid 
into  the  treasury  for  the  use  of  said  district. 

Sec.  55.  Powers  of  Eminent  Domain.]  Drainage  and  Levee  dis- 
tricts heretofore  organized  under  any  former  Act,  and  drainage  and  levee 
districts  hereafter  organized  under  this  Act,  when  it  shall  become  neces- 
sary to  construct  drains,  ditches  or  levees,  either  within  or  without  said 
districts  in  order  to  protect  the  lands  embraced  in  said  drainage  and  levee 
districts  from  inundation  and  overflow,  or  repair,  enlarge,  raise,  strengthen 
or  protect  drains,  ditches  or  levees  already  constructed  or  in  process  of 
construction,  may,  by  their  agents  and  employees,  enter  upon  and  take 
possession  of  such  lands,  paying,  if  the  owners  of  such  lands  and  the  com- 
missioners of  said  drainage  and  levee  districts  cannot  agree,  the  value  of 
such  lands  taken  and  the  amount  of  damages  occasioned  thereby,  to  any  such 
lands  or  its  appurtenances,  and  if  such  owners  and  commissioners  of  said 
drainage  and  levee  districts  cannot  agree,  then  the  value  of  such  land  either 
within  or  without  said  districts  cannot  agree,  then  the  value  of  such  land 
either  within  or  without  said  districts  and  the  damages  occasioned  thereto 
may  be  ascertained,  determined  and  paid  in  the  manner  that  may  now  or 
hereafter  be  provided  by  any  law  of  eminent  domain.  And  th6  commission- 
ers   of    said    drainage   and    levee    districts    when    necessary    to    protect    the 


308  LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS 

lands  of  the  said  districts,  the  drains,  ditches  or  levees  thereof,  may  put  in 
such  work  as  will  protect  the  same  and  they  may  go  beyond  the  bounds  of 
the  said  district  for  that  purpose. 

Sec.  56.  Power  to  Compel  Opening  of  Watercourse.]  When  any 
ditch  drain  or  other  work  of  enlarging  any  channel  or  watercourse  is 
located  by  the  commissioners  on  the  line  of  any  natural  depression  or  water- 
course, crossing  the  road  of  any  railroad  company  where  no  bridge  or 
culvert  or  opening  of  sufficient  capacity  to  allow  the  natural  flow  of  water 
of  such  ditch  or  water  course,  is  constructed,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
commissioners  to  give  notice  to  such  railroad  company  to  construct  or  en- 
large such  bridge  or  culvert  or  opening  in  the  grade  of  such  road,  for  such 
ditch  or  ditches  or  other  work,  of  the  dimensions  named  in  such  notice, 
within  twenty  days  from  the  service  thereof ;  and  any  railroad  company 
neglecting,  failing,  or  refusing  so  to  do,  shall  be  liable  to  any  owner  of  land 
in  such  district,  for  all  damages  to  such  land  sustained  by  such  neglect  or 
refusal ;  and  shall  be  liable  to  such  district  in  the  sum  of  twenty-five  dollars 
($25)  for  each  day  such  company  shall  have  neglected  or  refused  to  con- 
struct such  work,  after  the  time  fixed  in  such  notice  for  constructing  the 
same  shall  have  expired,  which  damages  or  penalty  may  be  recovered  before 
a  justice  of  the  peace,  if  within  his  jurisdiction,  or  before  any  court  of 
competent  jurisdiction. 

Sec.  57.  Power  to  Clean  Out  Watercourse — Meaning  of  Ditch.] 
The  word  ditch  when  used  in  this  Act,  shall  be  held  to  include  any  drain  or 
watercourse,  and  the  petition  for  any  drainage  district  shall  be  held  to  mean 
and  include  any  side,  lateral  spur,  or  branch  ditch  or  drain,  whether  open, 
covered  or  tiled,  or  any  natural  watercourse  into  which  such  drains  or 
ditches  may  enter  for  the  purpose  of  outlet,  whether  such  watercourse  is 
situated  in  or  outside  of  the  district.  And  to  secure  complete  draining  of  the 
lands  within  any  drainage  district,  the  commissioners  are  hereby  vested  with 
full  power  to  widen,  straighten,  deepen  or  enlarge  any  such  watercourse,  or 
remove  drift  wood  or  rubbish  therefrom  whether  such  watercourse  is  situ- 
ated in,  outside  of  or  below  any  drainage  district ;  and,  when  it  is  necessary 
to  straighten  such  natural  watercourse  by  cutting  of  new  channel  upon  other 
lands,  the  value  of  such  lands  to  be  occupied  by  such  new  channel,  and 
damages,  if  any,  made  by  such  work  may  be  ascertained  and  paid  in  the 
manner  that  is  now  or  may  hereafter  be  provided  for  by  any  law  providing 
for  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain  in  force  in  this  State. 
The  expense  of  the  work  provided  for  in  this  section  shall  be  paid  from 
moneys  arising  from  assessments  upon  lands  within  the  district.  This  section 
shall  apply  to  any  and  all  drainage  districts  that  have  been  heretofore,  or 
may  hereafter  be  organized  under  this  Act. 

Sec.  58.  Power  to  Maintain  Dredge  Boats.  1  Whenever  the  com- 
missioners shall  deem  it  necessary  for  their  district  to  own,  maintain  and 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED   LEVEE    ACT  309 

operate  one  or  more  dredge  boats  for  the  construction  and  preservation  of 
its  drains,  ditches  and  levees,  they  may  with  the  approval  of  the  county 
court  then  having  jurisdiction,  purchase,  or  build,  and  maintain  and  operate 
one  or  more  dredge  boats  for  the  purposes  aforesaid  and  pay  for  the  same 
out  of  any  funds  of  said  district  arising  from  any  special  assessment  here- 
tofore or  hereafter  levied  for  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  the 
reclamation  system  of  said  district. 

Sec.  59.  Refusal,  Etc.  to  Perform  Duty.]  If  any  commissioner 
shall  refuse  or  neglect  to  discharge  any  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  him,  by 
virtue  of  this  Act,  he  shall  for  every  such  refusal  or  neglect,  be  liable  to 
the  party  aggrieved,  for  all  damages  sustained  by  him,  and  upon  conviction, 
may  be  fined  in  any  sum  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  ($100.00),  and 
be  removed  from  his  office. 

Sec.  60.  Removal  of  Commissioners — Filling  Vacancies.]  The 
court  may,  for  good  cause,  at  any  time,  remove  any  commissioner  appointed 
by  it,  and  appoint  another  in  his  place,  and  may  fill  all  vacancies  caused  by 
death,  resignation,  removal  or  otherwise. 

Sec.  61.  Succession  of  Commissioners.]  On  the  first  Monday  of 
September,  in  each  district  heretofore  organized,  and  on  the  first  Monday 
of  September  after  any  district  may  hereafter  be  organized  under  this  Act, 
the  county  court  shall  appoint  three  commissioners  for  each  respective  dis- 
trict, one  to  serve  one  year,  one  two  years,  and  one  for  three  years  from  the 
date  of  the  first  appointment  under  this  section,  and  on  the  first  Monday 
of  September  of  each  year  thereafter  the  said  court  shall  appoint  one  com- 
missioner of  said  district  who  shall  hold  his  office  for  three  years,  and  until 
his  successor  is  chosen  and  qualified,  but  in  all  districts  now  organized  or  here- 
after to  be  organized  for  the  construction,  reparation  and  protection  of  drains, 
ditches  and  levees  for  agricultural  purposes,  the  court  shall  appoint  as  com- 
missioner or  commissioners,  only  such  persons  as  shall  be  petitioned  for  by 
adult  land  owners  representing  a  majority  of  the  acreage  embraced  in  the 
district:  Provided,  such  petition  is  filed  in  said  court  on  or  before  the  first 
day  of  September  aforesaid.  In  case  such  petition  is  not  filed,  as  aforesaid, 
then  said  court,  within  ten  days  after  the  said  first  Monday  in  September, 
shall  appoint  some  suitable  person  or  persons  as  commissioner  or  commission- 
ers of  said  district  without  such  petition. 

Sec.  62.  Change  to  Single  Commissioner.]  At  any  time  after  the 
drains,  ditches  or  levees,  for  the  construction  of  which  the  district  was 
organized,  have  been  finally  completed,  the  court  may,  on  petition  therefor, 
as  aforesaid,  dispense  with  two  commissioners,  and  thereafter  appoint  for 
such  district,  in  accordance  with  this  Act,  but  one  commissioner,  such  one 
commissioner  to  hold  office  for  the  term  of  three  years  from  his  appoint- 
ment and  until  his  successor  is  chosen  and  qualified,  and  he  shall  perform 
the  duties  and  exercise  the  powers  thereof  vested  and  imposed  upon  the 


310  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

three  commissioners  of  such  district.  Whenever,  upon  the  petition  of  one 
or  more  land  owners  of  said  district,  it  shall  appear  to  the  court  that  addi- 
tional work  is  needed  in  said  district,  the  court  may  again  appoint  three 
commissioners  for  said  district. 

ARTICLE  X. 
Penalties. 

Sec.  63.  Penalties  for  injuring,  etc.,  any  drain.]  Any  person 
who  shall  wrongfully  and  purposely  fill  up,  cut,  injure,  destroy  or  in  any 
manner  impair  the  usefulness  of  any  drain,  ditch  or  other  work,  constructed 
under  this  Act,  or  heretofore  constructed  under  any  law  of  this  State,  or 
that  may  have  been  heretofore,  or  may  hereafter  be  voluntarily  constructed 
for  the  purposes  of  drainage  or  protection  against  overflow  may  be  fined 
in  any  sum  not  exceeding  two  hundred  dollars,  to  be  recovered  before  a 
justice  of  peace  in  the  proper  county,  or  if  the  injury  be  to  any  levee 
whereby  lands  shall  be  overflowed,  he  may  on  conviction  in  any  court  of 
competent  jurisdiction,  be  fined  in  any  sum  not  exceeding  five  thousand 
dollars ;  and  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  felony  and  imprisoned  in  the  State 
penitentiary  for  a  term  of  not  less  than  one,  nor  more  than  five  years,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  court.  All  complaints  under  this  section  shall  be  in  the  name 
of  the  People  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  all  fines,  when  collected,  shall  be 
paid  over  to  the  proper  commissioners,  to  be  used  for  the  work  so  injured. 

Sec.  64.  Civil  liability  for  damages.]  In  addition  to  the  penalities 
provided  in  the  preceding  section,  the  person  so  wrongfully  and  purposely 
filling  up,  cutting,  injuring,  destroying  or  impairing  the  usefulness  of  any 
such  drain,  ditch,  levee  or  other  work,  by  obstructing  or  filling  up  of  any 
natural  stream  or  outlet,  within  or  beyond  the  drainage  district  shall  be 
liable  to  the  comissioners  having  charge  thereof,  for  all  damages  occasioned 
to  such  work,  and  to  the  owners  and  occupants  of  land  for  all  damages 
that  may  result  to  them  by  such  wrongful  act,  which  may  be  recovered 
before  a  justice  of  the  peace,  if  within  his  jurisdiction,  or  before  any  court 
of  competent  jurisdiction. 

ARTICLE  XL 

Miscellaneous. 

Sec.  65.  No  second  tax — upper  ditch  benefited  by  lower  ditch.] 
When  a  ditch  or  drain  of  a  district  has  been  located  under  the  provisions 
of  this  Act,  of  sufficient  capacity  to  carry  off  the  water  that  flows  into  it, 
and  also  to  properly  drain  the  land  assessed  for  the  construction  of  the  same, 
such  land  shall  not  again  be  assessed  for  the  purpose  of  improving  any 
lands  of  any  drainage  district  lying  above  the  lands  so  drained  and  assessed. 

Sec.   66.      Outlet  drainage  districts.]      When   any   river   or   other 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED    LEVEE    ACT  311 

stream  or  watercourse  in  this  State  constitutes  the  common  outlet  for  two 
or  more  drainage  districts  heretofore  or  hereafter  organized  under  any  of 
the  laws  of  this  State,  and  also  constitutes  the  outlet  for  the  drainage  of 
lands  not  organized  into  a  drainage  district,  and  when  it  will  be  a  benefit 
to  the  lands  included  in  said  drainage  districts  and  to  said  lands  not  so  in- 
cluded but  having  said  river  or  watercourse  as  the  outlet  for  drainage, 
for  agricultural  or  sanitary  purposes,  that  said  river,  watercourse  or  other 
stream  or  any  portion  thereof  constituting  such  common  outlet  be  deepened, 
widened  or  otherwise  improved  or  that  the  channel  thereof  be  changed  or 
straightened,  an  outlet  drainage  district  may  be  organized  in  the  manner 
provided  in  this  Act  for  the  organization  of  drainage  districts,  and  all  lands 
benefited  by  so  deepening,  widening  or  otherwise  improving  or  by  changing 
or  straightening  the  channel  of  such  river  or  watercourse  may  be  included 
within  the  boundaries  of  such  outlet  drainage  district,  and  it  shall  not  con- 
stitute any  objection  to  the  inclusion  of  any  lands  in  such  outlet  drainage 
district  that  said  lands  had  been  therefore  included  in  a  drainage  district 
organized  under  the  general  provisions  of  this  Act,  or  under  any  other 
laws  of  this  State.  Commissioners  of  such  outlet  drainage  district  may  be 
appointed  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner  and  with  the  qualifications  pro- 
vided in  this  Act  for  the  appointment  of  commissioners  of  drainage  districts, 
and  except  as  herein  limited  with  like  powers  and  duties.  Special  assess- 
ments may  be  levied  on  the  lands  or  other  property  included  in  said  outlet 
district,  and  which  will  be  benefited  by  the  improvements  or  other  work  pro- 
posed in  said  outlet  district  in  the  same  manner  as  assessments  for  benefits 
are  provided  in  levee  and  drainage  districts  organized  under  this  Act, 
to  pay  the  costs  of  constructing  such  improvement  or  other  work,  together 
with  the  cost  of  all  proceedings  therefor,  but  neither  said  outlet  drainage 
district  nor  its  commissioners  or  officers  shall  have  any  right  to  make  any 
assessments  against  any  of  the  lands  included  in  said  outlet  drainage  district 
for  any  purpose  except  to  deepen  or  widen  or  otherwise  improve  the  channel 
of  said  river  or  watercourse  so  constituting  an  outlet  for  the  drainage  of  the 
lands  included  in  said  outlet  drainage  district  or  to>  change  or  straighten 
the  channel  thereof,  nor  to  construct  any  other  drainage  work  except  to 
deepen,  widen  or  otherwise  improve  the  channel  of  such  river  or  water- 
course or  to  change  or  straighten  the  channel  thereof :  And,  provided, 
that  insofar  as  may  be,  except  as  herein  limited  and  restricted,  all  the 
provisions  of  this  Act  with  reference  to  drainage  districts  organized  there- 
under shall  apply  to  an  outlet  drainage  district  so  organized  under  this 
section:  And,  provided,  further,  that  when  it  becomes  necessary  said  outlet 
drainage  district  may  acquire  lands  for  right  of  way  for  an  improvement 
constructed  by  it  in  the  same  manner  as  drainage  and  levee  districts  organized 
under  this  Act  may  acquire  right  of  way  and  may  so  acquire  said  right  of  way 
either  within  or  without  the  boundaries  of  an  organized  drainage  district 


312  LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 

theretofore  organized:  And,  provided,  further,  that  no  outlet  drainage  dis- 
trict organized  under  this  section  shall  remove,  destroy,  appropriate  or  use 
any  levee,  drain,  ditch  or  art  thereof,  or  other  work  of  any  drainage  district 
organized  under  any  laws  of  this  State  without  paying  such  drainage  district 
just  compensation  therefor.  And,  provided,  further,  that  the  inclusion  of 
lands  within  an  outlet  drainage  district  which  are  not  in  any  other  drainage 
district,  shall  not,  after  the  organization  of  such  outlet  district,  prevent  the 
formation  of  drainage  districts  under  the  general  provisions  of  this  or  other 
Acts  including  such  lands,  nor  their  annexation  to  other  drainage  districts 
except  outlet  districts.  In  case  the  commissioners  of  said  outlet  drainage 
district  and  the  corporate  authorities  of  any  such  drainage  district  shall  be 
unable  to  agree  upon  the  compensation  to  be  paid  to  such  drainage  district, 
the  same  may  be  ascertained  and  enforced  by  any  proper  proceedings  in  any 
court  of  competent  jurisdiction.  Upon  payment  of  such  compensation,  said 
outlet  district  shall  have  the  right  to  appropriate  such  levees,  ditches,  drain- 
age or  other  work  within  the  boundary  of  such  outlet  district  for  and  in  con- 
nection with  the  purposes  for  which  said  outlet  district  is  organized. 

Sec.  67.  Mutual  drainage  districts.]  Owners  of  lands  which  require 
combined  drainage  and  protection  from  overflow,  may  form  drainage  and 
levee  districts,  by  mutual  agreement,  to  include  lands,  of  their  own  only,  by 
an  instrument  in  writing,  duly  signed  and  acknowledged  and  recorded  in  the 
drainage  record.  The  mutual  agreement  may  include  the  location  and  char- 
acter of  work  to  be  done ;  the  adjustment  of  damages ;  the  amount  of  taxes 
to  be  levied;  the  apportionment  thereof;  how  the  work  shall  be  done,  or  so 
much  of  these,  or  more,  as  may  be  agreed  upon,  and  to  this  extent  shall  be 
as  valid  as  though  formed  in  the  mode  as  hereinbefore  provided,  and  may 
ask  the  judge  of  the  County  Court  to  appoint  three  commissioners  whose 
powers  and  duties  thereafter  shall  be  the  same  as  prescribed  by  other  dis- 
tricts, and  they  shall  commence  acting  at  the  point  reached  at  the  aforesaid 
agreement:  Provided,  that  the  said  agreement  may  include  the  selection  of 
three  drainage  commissioners  from  their  own  number  or  from  others,  and 
their  terms  of  office  shall  be  until  the  first  Monday  of  September  thereafter, 
or  for  this  term  and  for  one  year  in  addition,  as  may  be  agreed  at  the  time 
of  their  appointment,  and  at  the  annual  meeting  thereafter  the  majority  of 
the  land  owners  may  choose,  by  ballot,  three  commissioners  to  serve,  one 
for  one  year,  one  for  two  years,  and  one  for  three  years  from  the  date  of 
appointment,  and  on  the  first  Monday  of  each  year  thereafter  the  land 
owners  may  elect  one  commissioner  of  said  district  who  shall  hold  his  office 
for  three  years  and  until  his  successor  is  chosen  and  qualified.  The  powers 
and  duties  of  the  commissioners  of  a  district  by  mutual  agreement,  and  the 
mode  and  effect  of  special  assessments,  shall  be  the  same  as  provided  for 
other  districts  organized  under  this  Act,  and  all  the  powers,  rights  and  bene- 
fits of  very  kind  given  to  drainage  districts  organized  by  petition  to  the 


STATUS   OF   THE   REVISED   LEVEE    ACT  313 

County  Court  shall  be  had  by  drainage  districts  organized  by  mutual  agree- 
ment, and  districts  organized  by  mutual  agreement  may  do  as  fully  all  work 
mutually  agreed  upon,  as  though  surveys,  plats  and  profiles,  etc.,  were  made 
and  filed  in  said  matter,  and  contracts  for  work  to  be  done  in  said  district 
may  be  let  in  parts,  or  the  whole  of  said  work  may  be  let  in  one  contract  as 
is  provided  in  this  Act,  as  seems  to  be  for  the  best  interest  of  the  parties  con- 
cerned. 

Sec.  68.  Lawful  to  Include  in  Drainage  District  All  Lands  Pro- 
tected From  Inundation,  Etc.]  In  the  organization  of  drainage  districts 
under  this  Act  or  former  Acts  where  the  works  of  the  district  include  the 
construction  of  levees  to  protect  the  lands  within  said  district  from  inunda- 
tion and  overflow,  and  the  installation  of  a  pumping  plant,  it  shall  be  lawful 
to  include  within  the  boundaries  of  said  district  all  the  lands  protected  from 
inundation  and  overflow  and  all  lands  benefited  by  reason  of  the  construc- 
tion of  levees,  and  the  installation  of  said  pumping  plant,  regardless  of 
whether  or  not  any  of  said  lands  are  included  within  the  boundaries  of  any 
other  district  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  works 
of  which  district  consist  only  of  ditches  and  drains  and  do  not  include  the 
construction  of  levees  and  the  installation  of  pumping  plants. 

Sec.  69.  Reorganization  of  Other  Districts  Under  This  Act.] 
Whenever  a  petition,  signed  by  the  owners  of  lands  situated  in  any  drainage 
district  organized  under  any  unrepealed  law  of  this  State,  equal  in  number 
to  one-fifth  of  the  adult  owners  of  lands  in  such  district,  shall  be  presented 
to  the  town  clerk  of  the  township  in  which  the  lands  of  such  district,  or  a 
major  part  thereof  lie,  or  the  commissioners  of  any  drainage  district  not 
under  township  organization,  praying  to  submit  the  question  whether  such 
"district  will  become  organized  as  a  drainage  district  under  this  Act,  to  the 
decision  of  the  adult  owners  of  lands  in  such  district,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  town  clerk,  or  such  commissioners,  to  submit  the  same  accordingly ;  and 
to  fix  the  time  and  place  within  such  district  for  holding  such  election  and 
make  a  record  thereof ;  and  to  appoint  the  three  judges  to  hold  such  election  ; 
and  to  give  notice  of  the  time  and  place  and  purpose  of  such  election,  by 
causing  at  least  five  notices  thereof  to  be  posted  in  public  places  in  such  dis- 
trict, for  at  least  fifteen  days  prior  to  holding  such  election.  Each  owner  re- 
siding within  or  out  of  such  district  shall  have  the  right  to  cast  a  ballot  at 
such  election,  with  the  words  thereon,  "for  organization  under  the  Revised 
Levee  Act,"  or  "against  organization  under  the  Revised  Levee  Act ;"  the 
judges  of  such  election  shall  be  sworn  as  required  by  law  in  force  concern- 
ing State  and  municipal  elections,  and  shall  make  returns  of  the  poll-books 
of  such  election,  as  soon  as  practicable,  after  the  election  is  held,  to  the 
clerk  of  the  County  Court  of  the  county  in  which  such  district  or  the  greater 
part  of  the  land  thereof  is  situated.  The  clerk  of  the  County  Court  to 
whom  such  returns  have  been  made,  shall  canvass  such  returns  and  cause  a 


314 


LAND   DRAINAGE    IN    ILLINOIS 


statement  of  the  result  of  such  election  to  be  entered  of  record,  and  if  a 
majority  of  the  votes  are  "for  organization  under  the  Revised  Levee  Act," 
the  officer  canvassing  such  returns,  shall  send  a  certified  copy  of  such  record 
to  the  town  clerk,  or  other  officer  having  in  his  custody  the  records  of  such 
district,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  file  and  record  such  certified  copy  of  the 
result  of  such  election,  in  the  drainage  record  of  such  district;  and  such 
district  shall,  from  thence  forth,  be  deemed  to  be  duly  incorporated  as  a 
drainage  district,  under  this  Act,  and  all  further  proceedings  and  work  of 
such  district  shall,  thereafter,  be  in  the  manner  provided  by  this  Act,  but  the 
officers  of  such  district  then  in  office  shall  continue  as  like  officers  of  such 
district,  until  their  successors  shall  be  appointed  and  qualified  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  Act.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  drainage  commissioners, 
treasurer  and  other  officers  of  any  drainage  district,  whose  terms  of  office 
expire,  by  reason  of  adopting  the  organization  under  this  Act,  or  whenever 
a  successor  or  successors  to  any  or  either  of  the  officers  provided  by  this 
Act  shall  have  been  appointed  and  qualified,  to  transfer  and  deliver  all 
moneys,  books  and  papers  appertaining  to  his  office,  to  such  successor  or 
successors  in  office. 

Repeal  and  Saving. 

Sec.  69^.    The  following  Acts  are  hereby  repealed : 

"An  Act  to  provide  for  the  construction,  reparation  and  protection  of 
drains,  ditches  and  levees,  across  the  lands  of  others  for  agricultural,  sani- 
tary and  mining  purposes,  and  to  provide  for  the  organization  of  drainage 
districts,"  approved  and  in  force  May  29,  1879,  and  all  amendments  thereto." 

"An  Act  to  authorize  certain  drainage  and  levee  districts  to  organize, 
maintain  and  operate  dredge  boats  for  the  construction  and  preservation  of 
drains,  ditches  and  levees,"  approved  and  in  force  May  16,  1905. 

Sec.  70.  The  provisions  of  this  Act  so  far  as  they  are  the  same  as  those 
of  existing  statutes,  shall  be  construed  as  a  continuation  thereof,  and  not 
as  a  new  enactment,  and  a  reference  in  a  statute  which  has  not  been  repealed, 
to  provisions  of  the  law  which  have  been  revised  and  re-enacted  herein, 
shall  be  construed  as  applying  to  such  provisions  as  so  incorporated  in 
this  Act. 

The  repeal  of  a  law  by  this  Act  shall  not  affect  any  Act  done,  ratified  or 
confirmed,  or  any  right  accrued  or  established,  or  any  penalty  incurred  under 
the  provisions  of  such  law. 

Sec.  71.  If  any  clause,  sentence,  paragraph  or  part  of  this  Act  shall  be 
adjudged  by  any  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  to  be  invalid  or  unconstitu- 
tional, such  judgment  shall  not  affect,  impair,  invalidate  or  nullify  the  re- 
mainder of  this  Act,  but  the  effect  thereof  shall  be  confined  to  the  clause, 
sentence,  paragraph,  or  part  thereof  immediately  involved  in  the  controversy 
in  which  such  judgment  or  decree  shall  be  rendered. 


STATUS   OF    THE    REVISED    LEVEE    ACT  315 

Sec.  72.  All  drainage  districts  in  process  of  organization  or  exercising 
any  functions  under  any  law  repealed  herein  shall  proceed  under  the  provi- 
sions of  this  Act  as  a  continuation  of  said  repealed  law  saving  all  rights  as 
provided  in  Section  70  herein. 

In  the  several  counties,  courts  of  record  now  having  jurisdiction  of 
drainage  districts  shall  retain  jurisdiction  under  this  Act.  The  records  of 
drainage  districts  organized  before  justices  of  the  peace,  shall,  together  with 
a  transcript  of  the  docket  of  such  justices  relating  to  said  districts  be  trans- 
mitted to  the  county  court  of  the  same  county  and  all  future  proceedings  in 
such  districts  shall  be  had  in  such  county  court. 

Cross-Reference  Table  of  Section  Numbers  in  the  Revised  Levee 
Act  and  Old  Levee  Act 

The  following  table  has  been  prepared  for  the  convenience  of  those  who 
wish  to  make  a  detailed  comparative  study  of  the  Old  Levee  Act  and  the 
proposed  Revised  Levee  Act.  The  first  and  third  columns  list  in  numerical 
order  the  section  numbers  in  the  Revised  Act  and  the  Old  Act  respectively. 
The  second  and  fourth  columns  give  the  corresponding  section  numbers  in 
the  Old  Act  and  the  Revision  respectively. 


Revised  Act 

Old  Act 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4— Cir.  Ct.  Act 

5 

5 

6 

Omitted,  but  see 

46,  47,  and  48. 

7 

9 

8 

10 

9 

11 

10 

12 

11 

13 

12 

14 

13 

15 

14 

[16 

15 

16 

16 

[16 

17 

17 

17 

17 

18 

55 

isy2 

17a 

19 

17b-18 

20 

26 

21 

31 

22 

27 

23 

29 

24 

30 

25 

33 

Old  Act 

Revised  Act 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4 

5 

5 

6 

46 

7 

47 

8 

48 

9 

7 

10 

8 

11 

9 

12 

10 

13 

11 

14 

12 

15 

13 

16 

14 

16 

15 

16 

16 

16 

16 

17 

17 

1754 

41 

17a 

18^ 

17b 

19 

18 

19 

26 

26 

27 

22 

28 

53 

29 

23 

316  LAND  DRAINAGE  IN   ILLINOIS 


Revised  Act 

Old  Act 

26 

34 

27 

35 

28 

34a 

29 

34/2 

30 

38 

31 

64 

32 

44a 

32^ 

44 

33 

39 

34 

36 

35 

72 

36 

37 

37 

37 

38 

60 

39 

61 

40 

61 

41 

\7y2 

42 

26y2 

43 

58 

44 

58a 

45 

59 

46 

6 

47 

7 

48 

8 

49 

47 

50 

41 

51 

32 

52 

42 

53 

28 

54 

45 

55 

46 

56 

56 

57 

57 

58 

Ind. 

59 

50 

60 

40 

61 

62 

62 

62 

63 

66 

64 

67 

65 

51 

66 

65a 

67 

75 

68 

78 

69 

65 

Act 


i  Act 

Revised  Act 

30 

24 

31 

21 

32 

51 

33 

25 

34 

26 

34a 

28 

34^4 

29 

35 

27 

36 

34 

37 

36-37 

38 

30 

39 

33 

40 

60 

41 

50 

42 

52 

43 

Omitted 

44 

32/2 

44a 

32 

45 

54 

46 

55 

47 

49 

48 

Omitted 

49 

Omitted 

50 

59 

51 

65 

55 

18 

56 

56 

58 

43 

58a 

44 

59 

45 

60 

38 

61 

39-40 

62 

61-62 

63 

Omitted 

64 

31 

65 

69 

65a 

66 

66 

63 

67 

64 

68 

Omitted 

69 

Omitted 

70 

Omitted 

71 

Omitted 

72 

35 

72a 

Omitted 

72 

Omitted 

73 

Omitted 

74 

Omitted 

74*4 

67 

78 

68 

PART  IV— STATE  AID 
By  G.  W.  Pickels 

CHAPTER  XXXVI— THE  QUESTION  OF  STATE  AID 

This  study  of  drainage  conditions  in  Illinois  discloses  the  fact  that 
1,326,260  acres  along  the  streams  of  the  State  are  subject  to  overflow  for 
which  no  provision  is  being  made.  Of  this  amount,  199,500  acres  are  in 
organized  drainage  districts,  but  because  of  inadequate  plans  on  the  part 
of  the  districts,  this  area  is  in  little  better  condition  than  the  lands  outside. 
The  total  represents  3.7  per  cent  of  the  entire  area  of  the  State. 

No  attempt  is  made  to  cultivate  a  large  part  of  this  land,  and  that  which 
is  farmed  yields  crops  only  from  10  to  65  per  cent  of  the  time,  with  an 
average  of  about  25  per  cent.  If  accurate  records  were  kept,  it  would  be 
found  that  most  of  the  farmers  of  unreclaimed  bottom  lands  are  losing  money. 

The  soil  is  extremely  fertile  and  produces  abundant  crops  when  it 
escapes  overflow  during  the  growing  and  harvesting  seasons.  While  the 
land  along  some  of  the  streams  is  better  than  that  along  others,  yet  in  most 
instances  the  bottom  land  soil  is  the  best  in  its  community,  having  been 
formed  by  the  erosion  and  deposition  of  the  rich  top  soil  of  the  tributary 
area. 

This  practically  waste  land  represents  one  of  the  greatest,  if  not  the 
greatest,  undeveloped  natural  resource  of  the  State ;  for  mineral  and  other 
natural  resources  are  exhaustible  in  time,  but  the  wealth  which  lies  in  the 
fertility  of  the  soil,  if  scientifically  farmed,  is  inexhaustible.  The  soil  is  a 
veritable  gold  mine  and  in  the  last  analysis  is  the  source  of  the  greatest 
part  of  our  national  wealth.  Every  individual  in  a  nation  is  benefited  directly 
or  indirectly  by  the  prosperity  of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  Similarly,  every 
citizen  in  the  State  of  Illinois  who  has  the  interest  of  the  State  at  heart, 
should  be  concerned  in  the  higher  development  of  its  natural  resources,  and 
the  reclamation  of  the  overflowed  lands  should  receive  the  attention  which 
its  importance  merits. 

Three  parties  will  be  directly  benefited  by  the  reclamation  of  these 
areas :  First,  the  owners  of  the  land  who  will  receive  the  largest  share  of 
the  profits  from  the  land;  second,  the  county  in  which  the  land  is  located, 
which  will  receive  more  revenue  not  only  because  of  the  increased  valuation 
of  the  land  but  also  because  of  the  increased  returns  from  it ;  and  third,  the 
State,  which  will  be  benefited  in  the  same  way  as  the  county,  but  to  a  less 
degree.     These  benefits  can  be  expressed  in  direct  monetary  terms. 

Although  indirect  benefits  cannot  be  measured  in  dollars,  they  are 
many  and  far  reaching. 

The  communities  which  contain  large  areas  of  overflowed  lands  are  the 

($17) 


318  THE  QUESTION  OF  STATE  AID 

most  backward  in  the  State  from  the  standpoint  of  social,  educational,  and 
industrial  development,  as  the  natural  result  of  frequent  isolation  and  the 
lack  of  good  lines  of  communication.  The  reclamation  of  the  bottom  lands 
means  better  facilities  for  transportation  and  educational,  social,  and  political 
advancement.  At  present  in  a  number  of  valleys  like  the  Kaskaskia  and 
Embarrass,  the  bottom  roads  are  impassable  for  weeks  and  months  at  a  time 
except  on  horseback;  and  during  extreme  flood  periods,  railroad  traffic  is 
delayed  and  occasionally  stopped.  The  writer  fears  that  the  construction  of 
the  State-aid  roads  across  these  valleys  is  being  planned  without  adequate 
thought  as  to  the  future  improvements  in  the  channels  of  the  streams.  One 
of  the  first  steps  in  bottom  land  reclamation  is  the  straightening  of  the 
crooked  streams,  and  if  the  State  constructs  permanent  bridges  over  the 
present  channels,  they  will  seriously  interfere  with  future  channel  improve- 
ments. It  would  seem  that  the  two  problems  should  be  studied  at  the  same 
time  and  plans  evolved  which  probably  would  be  satisfactory  to  both  in- 
terests. It  is  said  that  some  of  the  county  superintendents  of  highways 
have  brought  this  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  State  highway  officials,  but 
that  thus  far  the  matter  has  been  given  little  consideration. 

At  present  a  large  part  of  the  1,326,260  acres  of  overflowed  land  is  non- 
productive ;  but  if  protected  from  the  flood  waters  and  drained,  it  would 
raise  as  abundant  crops  as  any  land  in  the  State.  Certainly  it  would  seem  a 
good  investment  on  the  part  of  the  land  owners  to  reclaim  it.  Large  areas 
have  already  been  reclaimed  with  considerable  profit  to  their  owners,  and 
many  projects  are  now  being  promoted  to  redeem  tracts,  which  are  so  situ- 
ated that  they  can  be  handled  independently.  The  cost  of  reclamation  will 
vary  of  course  with  natural  local  conditions,  but  there  are  few  cases  in 
which  two  or  three  crops  from  the  land  will  not  pay  for  the  improvement. 

The  question  naturally  arises  as  to  why  all  of  this  land  has  not  been  re- 
claimed, since  the  investment  is  a  profitable  one.  The  answer  is  that  in  the 
smaller  valleys  the  stream  channels  must  be  straightened  first  to  permit  the 
flood  water  to  run  off  faster  and  to  provide  outlets  for  the  drainage  of  the 
land.  This  under  present  law  means  the  cooperation  of  the  majority  of 
the  owners  or  the  owners  of  the  majority  of  the  land,  which  is  rather 
difficult  to  secure  for  various  reasons.  Some  own  high  land  as  well  as 
bottom  land  and  are  not  particularly  concerned  with  the  latter  areas,  which 
they  bought  along  with  the  higher  land  and  at  small  cost ;  some  feel  that  the 
improvements  are  prohibitive  in  cost  and  that  the  State  should  pay  part  of 
it;  others  are  opposed  to  improvements  of  any  kind,  and  look  upon  floods 
as  necessary  evils  to  be  endured  rather  than  corrected;  but  there  are  still 
others  who  are  more  broad-minded  and  progressive  and  who  see  the  possi- 
bilities of  the  situation  and  are  anxious  to  develop  them. 

In  many  areas  the  owners  are  willing  to  pay  their  share  of  the  cost 


LAND  DRAINAGE   IN   ILLINOIS  319 

of  reclamation,  but  are  not  willing  to  engage  in  the  promotional  work  neces- 
sary to  organize  projects  of  this  kind. 

Along  the  middle  and  lower  reaches  of  many  streams  the  flood  condi- 
tions are  worse  than  they  were  formerly,  due  to  the  large  amount  of  arti- 
ficial drainage  work  which  has  been  done  in  the  prairie  areas  at  the  upper 
ends  of  the  watersheds.  Some  lands  which  were  formerly  cultivated  are  now 
covered  with  trees  because  of  this  fact.  Some  owners  feel,  with  some  justifi- 
cation, that  since  the  State,  through  its  drainage  laws,  has  permitted  such 
a  large  amount  of  artificial  drainage  to  be  done  to  the  detriment  of  the 
lower  lands,  it  should  assist  in  remedying  the  situation  by  opening  up  the 
river  channels. 

Whether  or  not  the  State  should  bear  any  part  of  the  cost  of  channel 
improvement  is  a  matter  upon  which  the  writer  is  not  prepared  to  express 
an  opinion;  but  since  the  State  will  be  benefited  directly  through  increased 
revenue  from  the  land  and  indirectly  through  the  increased  wealth  of  a  por- 
tion of  its  citizens  and  the  more  rapid  improvement  of  these  several  com- 
munities, it  certainly  should  be  interested  in  the  matter  and  should  do  all 
that  it  reasonably  can  toward  bringing  about  the  reclamation  of  this  large 
aggregate  area  of  land  which  is  now  unproductive. 

The  assistance  which  the  State  might  quite  properly  give  in  this  work 
is  of  a  threefold  nature :   educational,  investigational  and  legislative. 

Educational  Assistance 

One  of  the  serious  obstacles  which  is  delaying  the  reclamation  of  this 
land  is  the  opposition  of  the  more  conservative  land  owners  who,  not  under- 
standing the  processes  and  economical  advantages  of  reclamation,  are 
standing  in  their  own  light  and  making  it  very  discouraging  for  the  more 
enlightened  owners  who  realize  that  they  are  losing  money  every  year  that 
the  bottom  land  remains  in  its  present  condition. 

A  state  educational  campaign  in  the  river  valleys  concerned  would 
largely  remove  this  obstacle,  since  the  reclamation  of  these  lands  can  be 
shown  to  be  an  excellent  business  investment  if  carried  out  on  a  compre- 
hensive scale  and  in  accordance  with  sound  engineering  principles.  Such 
a  campaign  might  include : 

1.  The  preparation  of  pamphlets  explaining  (a)  the  engineering 
features  of  such  projects,  (b)  the  best  method  of  financing  their  construc- 
tion so  as  to  make  the  profits  from  the  land  itself  pay  for  its  reclamation, 
and  (c)  the  financial  benefit  to  the  owners  of  the  land. 

2.  Illustrated  lectures  delivered  through  the  areas  concerned,  showing 
the  results  of  land  reclamation  which  has  already  been  accomplished,  and 
giving  facts  and  figures  in  connection  therewith. 

In  carrying  out  both  suggestions,  the  cooperation  of  the  County  Farm 
Advisers  should  be  sought.  These  men  are  all  interested  in  the  bottom  land 
problem  and  undoubtedly  will  be  glad  to  render  all  possible  assistance. 


THE   QUESTION   OF   STATE   AID  320 

Investigational  Assistance 

The  construction  works  necessary  for  the  reclamation  of  the  bottom 
land  along  the  larger  streams  consist  of : 

1.  The  straightening  and  cleaning  of  the  river  channel  to  provide  the 
best  outlet  obtainable  under  existing  conditions. 

2.  The  building  of  levees  to  keep  out  the  flood  waters. 

3.  The  dredging  of  diversion  ditches,  when  needed,  to  carry  the  hill 
waters  around  the  leveed  areas. 

4.  The  dredging  of  interior  ditches  to  collect  the  rain  and  seepage 
water. 

5.  The  construction  of  a  gravity  outlet  ditch  or  a  pumping  plant  for 
removing  the  water  from  the  leveed  areas. 

6.  The  laying  of  small  drain  tile  for  the  thorough  drainage  of  the 
land ;   this  to  be  done  individually. 

The  first  of  these,  items  must  be  carried  out  for  the  entire  valley, 
from  the  mouth  of  the  stream  as  far  upstream  as  the  overflow  conditions 
warrant  the  necessary  expenditures.  It  cannot  be  done  successfully  piece- 
meal, since  the  improvement  of  an  intermediate  stretch  cannot  be  intelligently 
planned  without  taking  into  consideration  the  various  watershed  character- 
istics both  above  and  below  the  stretch  in  question;  and  even  if  a  complete 
study  is  made  and  a  comprehensive  system  planned  and  only  a  portion  of  the 
improvement  is  constructed,  its  operation  will  not  be  entirely  successful,  be- 
cause it  will  be  out  of  adjustment  with  the  areas  above  and  below. 

The  levees  must  also  be  planned  as  a  unit,  though  it  is  not  so  essential 
from  the  operating  standpoint  that  all  the  required  levees  be  constructed  in 
one  operation.     However,  it  is  in  the  interest  of  economy  to  do  so. 

The  third,  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  items  previously  enumerated  can  be 
carried  out  locally  at  any  convenient  time  and  with  any  desired  degree  of 
completeness. 

However,  it  is  seen  that  the  improvement  of  the  channel  and  the  con- 
struction of  levees  require  the  cooperation  of  all  the  bottom  land-owners  along 
the  stream.  It  is  very  difficult  to  secure  signatures  to  a  petition  to  form  a 
district  of  this  kind  unless  the  signers  have  rather  definite  information  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  improvement,  how  it  will  affect  their  lands,  what  the  ap- 
proximate cost  will  be,  and  what  preliminary  expenses  they  will  be  called  on 
to  pay.  In  ordinary  drainage  districts  it  is  not  a  difficult  matter  to  determine 
the  location  and  extent  of  the  ditches  with  sufficient  accuracy  to  prepare  a 
general  description  of  such  work  as  is  required  by  law  to  be  contained  in  the 
petition ;  but  for  a  district  embracing  an  entire  river  valley,  a  large  amount  of 
engineering  work  must  be  clone  before  it  is  possible  to  prepare  such  a  petition. 
This  means  a  considerable  amount  of  money  must  be  raised  for  preliminary 
expenses,  whereas  few  men  would  care  to  guarantee  such  expenses  on  so 


LAND   DRAINAGE   IN    ILLINOIS  321 

uncertain  a  proposition.  State  assistance  in  making  plans  and  estimates  might 
well  be  given. 

Again,  in  straightening  the  channel  of  a  stream,  all  changes  should  be 
planned  on  engineering  and  economic  lines,  so  as  to  secure  the  best  results  for 
the  valley  as  a  whole,  and  the  wishes  of  individual  owners,  who  are  naturally 
biased  in  their  views,  should  not  have  undue  weight.  Hence  the  plans  for 
such  improvements  should  be  made  by  disinterested  parties.  Furthermore, 
before  intelligent  plans  can  be  made  for  comprehensive  channel  improvement, 
and  location  and  design  of  levees,  it  is  necessary  to  have  as  definite  informa- 
tion as  possible  in  regard  to  the  amount  and  distribution  of  the  water  which 
will  have  to  be  carried  in  the  channel  and  between  the  levees  during  the  flood 
periods.  To  obtain  this  information,  scientific  investigation  is  necessary. 
This  again  suggests  State  assistance. 

This  work  of  scientific  investigation  consists  of : 

1.  Mapping  the  watershed  area  under  consideration.  The  quadrangle 
maps  of  the  State  Geological  Survey  are  satisfactory  for  the  upland  portions 
of  the  watersheds,  but  for  the  immediate  valleys  of  the  main  streams  larger 
scale  maps  are  required.  These  have  already  been  made  for  portions  of 
some  of  the  streams. 

2.  The  establishing  of  many  more  gaging  stations  for  measuring  the 
run-off  from  various  portions  of  the  several  watersheds. 

3.  A  study  of  the  water  supply  and  sewage-disposal  needs  of  the  cities 
and  towns  along  the  streams,  so  that  the  best  interests  of  all  the  people  may 
be  served. 

Because  of  the  large  amount  of  upland  drainage  which  has  been  done, 
and  the  consequent  lowering  of  the  water  table,  the  summer  flow  of  our 
streams  is  much  less  than  formerly.  Drainage  has  increased  the  flood  flow 
and  decreased  the  low-water  flow.  While  there  are  times  when  the  rain 
water  should  be  removed  from  the  land  as  rapidly  as  possible  in  order  to 
prevent  crops  from  being  drowned  out,  there  are  other  times  when  the  rapid 
removal  of  the  flood  water  is  not  necessary,  and  some  plan  should  be  devised 
for  regulating  the  flow,  so  that  those  on  the  lower  end  of  a  stream  would  .not 
be  injured  unnecessarily.  Such  regulation,  if  extended  to  the  tile  drains, 
would  prevent  too  low  a  water  table  during  the  drought  periods,  and  increase 
the  summer  flow  of  the  stream.  This  is  a  matter  which  has  been  given  little, 
if  any,  attention.     But  its  importance  warrants  careful  investigational  study. 

After  all  the  necessary  data  have  been  obtained,  general  plans,  estimates, 
and  recommendations  should  be  prepared,  and  dignified  promotion  of  the 
enterprise  be  undertaken. 

Whether  or  not  the  State  should  pay  any  part  of  the  cost  of  channel 
correction  is  an  open  question.  Certainly  it  should  not  go  any  farther  than 
this.  However,  there  is  precedent  in  other  States  for  indirect  financial  aid, 
which  after  a  term  of  years  is  returned  to  the  State. 


322  THE  QUESTION   OF   STATE   AID 

It  is  almost  imperative  that  some  form  of  organization  other  than  that 
now  possible  be  provided  for  so  large  an  undertaking.  Possibly  an  act  some- 
what similar  to  that  for  the  organization  of  sanitary  districts,  where  large 
numbers  of  people  are  concerned,  might  apply  in  this  case. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  those  making  this  investigation,  that  once  the  chan- 
nels are  opened  up,  a  large  amount  of  local  levee  and  drainage  work  will  be 
done.  To  facilitate  this,  the  drainage  laws  should  be  revised,  so  that  when 
the  land-owners  want  to  organize  they  can  do  so  without  the  delay  and  unnec- 
essary expense  which  have  characterized  such  organizations  in  the  past. 

Legislative  Assistance 

As  stated  in  Chapter  I,  about  114  amendments  have  been  made  to  the 
drainage  laws  since  1878.  As  a  result  of  this  large  amount  of  "patching," 
the  present  law  is  illogically  arranged,  contains  certain  sections  which  have 
been  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  courts  and  certain  other  sections  which 
are  detrimental  to  the  best  interests  of  drainage  districts.  At  no  time  has  the 
law  been  revised  as  a  whole,  and  consequently  there  is  a  considerable  need  at 
present  for  such  a  revision. 

As  part  of  this  investigation  the  drainage  laws  of  Illinois  and  other  States 
have  been  studied,  the  opinion  of  leading  drainage  attorneys  has  been  sought, 
and  a  "Revised  Levee  Act"  has  been  drafted,  which  would  greatly  simplify 
the  organization  of  districts.  This  proposed  law  has  already  been  given  in 
Chapter  XXXV. 

The  State  can  assist  drainage  reclamation  by  passing  the  proposed  law. 


"II 


